Religion, Knowledge, and Artificial Intelligence

[bananas]

Recently there have been a number of threads in the religion/theology forum about knowledge.

In particular, there have been multiple threads claiming that there is ONLY ONE TRVE type of knowledge.
These threads follow the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy, endless fallacious arguments that any knowledge which doesn't fit certain biases and preconceptions isn't "true" knowledge.

However, computer scientists have spent decades studying how to get computers to approximate human knowledge and reasoning, and they've concluded that there are many different types of knowledge (as well as many different kinds of logic and reasoning).

Here's some snippets from a Wikipedia article on Knowledge Engineering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_engineering

Knowledge engineering (KE) was defined in 1983 by Edward Feigenbaum, and Pamela McCorduck as follows:

"KE is an engineering discipline that involves integrating knowledge into computer systems in order to solve complex problems normally requiring a high level of human expertise."

<snip>

Being still more art than engineering, KE is not as neat as the above list in practice.

<snip>

Since the mid-1980s, knowledge engineers have developed a number of principles, methods and tools to improve the knowledge acquisition and ordering. Some of the key principles are:

• There are different:
  
  
  
  • types of knowledge each requiring its own approach and technique.
    
  • types of experts and expertise, such that methods should be chosen appropriately.
    
  • ways of representing knowledge, which can aid the acquisition, validation and re-use of knowledge.
    
  • ways of using knowledge, so that the acquisition process can be guided by the project aims (goal-oriented).
    
  
  
• Structured methods increase the efficiency of the acquisition process.
  
• Knowledge Engineering is the process of eliciting Knowledge for any purpose be it Expert system or AI development
  

<snip>

[trotsky]

1. Then why did you start another one?

Why didn't you just post this to an existing thread?

[bananas]

2. Several reasons

For one thing, this isn't just about the subject of knowledge, but also about the fallacious logic used in the other threads. So in addition to the narrow topic of "knowledge", it's also about logic and reasoning.

To paraphrase one of the other thread-starters,

"No existing thread on this subject used the particular approach...
...of trying to start with an explication of how computer science approaches the subject of "knowledge". I thought it was worth while to try that approach in a new, separate thread, rather than burying such an admittedly long-winded post as the OP deep within an old thread.

Does that really bother you so much?"

[trotsky]

4. So it's OK for you but not for others.

Got it.

[bananas]

3. Since many here claim their religious beliefs are based on "science",

I thought a science-based discussion would be welcome.

[saras]

5. Because you usually can't fix a dumb thread?

[trotsky]

8. I'm sorry you feel that way about other people's opinions. n/t

[bananas]

9. +1000. nt

[Jim__]

6. Natural language processing by computer is an interesting topic.

It's a facet of AI.

Years ago Scientific American had an article on it - I can't find it now. The article gave some sample English sentences and the computer's interpretations of them. The interpretations were always valid; but usually far from my interpretation. In those days the main problems were lack of contextual consideration and lack of tacit knowledge by the computer.

I don't know if we consider language processing in human to be a matter of knowledge or an inherent skill. In AI, it is (or at least used to be) extremely difficult to program.

[Silent3]

7. If you're referring to my thread, please point out where...

...there is a single assertion about "ONLY ONE TRVE type" of knowledge.

Besides, categorizing types of knowledge is only roughly related to what knowledge is, and what it means to know something.

You could classify knowledge about plants (botany) and knowledge about animals (zoology -- hey, look, even specialized words for this stuff!) as different "types" of knowledge, but that hardly means the concept of knowledge is fundamentally different in those two areas.

Oddly enough, I didn't see anything in that Wikipedia article than mentioned, or even loosely supported, Divine Revelation or Mystical Insight as special categories of knowledge or "ways of knowing". Nor is there anything in the article which would set aside certain "types" of knowledge as exempt from proof or objective verification.

[MarkCharles]

10. I think I made the same point a few days ago in another thread, and was..

basically ignored, so good luck with getting a response, and I, for one, am glad you stated it again!

[bananas]

11. I just looked at your thread

You ask, "If you're referring to my thread, please point out where...
...there is a single assertion about "ONLY ONE TRVE type" of knowledge."

Well I just looked at your thread and in the very last sentence of your OP:

the scientific approach becomes the only approach that leads to a concept of "knowledge" which is consistent with deep, clear, and meaningful usage of that word.

You seem to want to redefine "knowledge" to mean "facts".
But we already have a word for facts - the word is "facts".
Knowledge and facts aren't the same thing.
I think that's usually taught in grammar school.

[Silent3]

12. What you refer to isn't defining TYPES of knowledge...

...it's an attempt to extract a central and consistent meaning of the word "knowledge" from among the disparate meanings that are in use.

Nor does what I say turn the word "knowledge" into a synonym for "facts". Briefly (without restating much of the post you refer to over again) I was equating knowledge with awareness of facts. If knowledge and facts were the same thing, there couldn't be such a thing as a fact that you don't know.

Let us review...

Awareness of a thing is not that thing itself.
A means of obtaining a thing is not that thing itself.
Defining common qualities of disparate things does not deny or define away the non-common qualities of those disparate things.

Are there any other category errors, confusions and oversimplifications I can clear up for you?