[FRIAM] AI and argument

[Marcus Daniels]

Frank writes:


"A useful distinction?  When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician.  I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority).  He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".


To change the subject a bit, the rapid proliferation of machine learning creates the potential of society becoming dependent on machine predictions that can be validated but cannot be verified.   For example, cars that are better drivers than the best humans, or personalized medical protocols that arise out from thousands of nested polynomials -- but in neither case is not known exactly how or why the control/predictive mechanisms actually work.   Maybe not just a thought experiment that we should worry (or not) about opaque oracles?


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:21:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI and argument

A useful distinction?  When I was working in the philosophy Dept at CMU my boss was a logician.  I asked him if he had heard the story that Bertrand Russell had fallen off his bike on the Cambridge campus when he realized that Anselm's proof of the existence of God was valid (argument from authority).  He looked puzzled but then said, "Ah, valid but not sound".

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM, "gⅼеɳ ☣" <gepropella at gmail.com<mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hm.  My example is simply an argument that I do NOT think succumbs to that fallacy.  Einstein is a reliable, but not completely unchallengeable, authority.  And if he is challenged, we can dig into the theory to find our own reasoning.

I'm curious if you believe all argument/reasoning can be *accurately* formalized?  Worse yet, do you believe that all argument can be reduced to deduction?


On 10/03/2017 05:13 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Aren't you missing a premise, if you are seeking a valid deductive argument?
>
> What connects Albert's thought with your conclusion?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171004/7d45b602/attachment.html>