This article reads, to me, as complete nonsense. I don't believe the term is in widespread use. I did some googling and the non-mirror content I found don't read much like the article. I can't fix it and doubt if anyone can, and suggest deletion. UninvitedCompany 21:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Almost BJAODN. Author has to get some points for originality for bouncing between existential questions and binary code. Definite (but kinda fun) nonsense and definite delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid topic, see also Ontological distinction (computer science). The talk page and history show a sometimes hilarious saga of love, war, and the associated phenomena. Hey, what's new? I wouldn't wish this on cleanup, perhaps we need a special page and a boilerplate for this sort of thing. Suggestions? Andrewa 22:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how to vote on this. Ontology is a cornerstone (or a dark corner) of philosophy and theology, and an ontological distinction is straightforward enough (if ontology is knowable), but, well, this article is a mess! Cartesian dualism codes directly into F=ma? There are about twelve steps of intellectual history innuendo that just got glossed over. Ontology is such a barely discussed section of philosophy that, well, I'm not educated by this article, not convinced that empiricism's naive ontology and empiricism's naive idealism are fittingly described here. I don't think I'm showing my ignorance when I say that this should be deleted as much as I am showing, I hope, how the article fails in its duty of informing me. Geogre 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The phrase "ontological distinction" is in widespread use in metaphysical philosophy. Try searching for the term with Heidegger and you'll get better results. From what I can tell, however, this widespread use is simply that of ontological as an adjective modifying distinction, and I'm not aware that it's a special term of art that wouldn't be covered by the term ontology. I have studied a little Heidegger, and I wouldn't be able to come up with more than a dictionary definition, though I'm certainly no expert. The existing content is an idiosyncratic personal essay that doesn't belong here and doesn't seem salvageable. Trying to pair "ontological distinction" with "operational distinction" is a mistaken mixture of metaphysical ontology with computer science concepts. We could delete, but I've redirected to Ontology instead. --Michael Snow 00:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pre-redirect version of the article isn't useful. Let's just start over. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete, that is, leave as it is now, a redirect to ontology. --Gary D 00:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It’s not useless at all. It helps to clarify a complex philosophical mode of theorizing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flacito (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
