The epistemological aspect of environmental education consists of: Conceptual structure. The Basic Question of Philosophy
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy associated with the theory of knowledge, or the theory of reflection of reality in human consciousness.
Knowledge engineering as a science, so to speak, is doubly epistemological - reality (O) is first reflected in the consciousness of the expert (M1), and then the activities and experience of the expert are interpreted by the consciousness of the knowledge engineer (M2), which serves as the basis for constructing the third interpretation ( Pz) - knowledge fields of the expert system (Figure 11). The process of cognition is essentially aimed at creating an internal representation of the surrounding world in the human mind.
Figure 11 - Epistemological aspect of knowledge extraction
In the process of knowledge extraction, the analyst is mainly interested in the knowledge component associated with the non-canonical individual knowledge of experts, since subject areas with this type of knowledge are considered most susceptible to the implementation of expert systems. These areas are usually called empirical, since they have accumulated a large volume of individual empirical facts and observations, while their theoretical generalization is a matter for the future.
Knowledge is always associated with the creation of new concepts and theories. It is interesting that often an expert generates new knowledge “on the fly”, right in the context of a conversation with an analyst. Such generation of knowledge can also be useful to the expert himself, who until that moment may not have been aware of a number of relationships and patterns of the subject area. The analyst, who is the “midwife” at the birth of new knowledge, can be helped here by the tools of system methodology, which allows the use of well-known principles of the logic of scientific research and the conceptual hierarchy of science. This methodology forces him to see the general behind the particular, i.e. build chains:
FACT = - >= GENERALIZED FACT = - > EMPIRICAL LAW = - > THEORETICAL LAW.
The knowledge engineer will not always reach the last link of this chain, but the very desire to move can be extremely fruitful. This approach is fully consistent with the structure of knowledge itself, which has two levels:
1. empirical (observations, phenomena);
2. theoretical (laws, abstractions, generalizations).
Criteria of scientific knowledge
Theory is not only a coherent system for generalizing scientific knowledge, it is also a certain way of producing new knowledge. The main methodological criteria for being scientific, allowing new knowledge itself to be considered scientific, and the method of obtaining it are:
· internal consistency and consistency;
· systematic;
· objectivity;
· historicism.
Internal consistency. At first glance, this criterion simply does not work in empirical areas: in them, facts often do not agree with each other, definitions are contradictory, diffuse, etc. An analyst who knows the features of empirical knowledge, its modality, inconsistency and incompleteness, has to smooth out these “roughnesses” of empirics.
The modality of knowledge means the possibility of its existence in various categories, i.e. in the constructions of existence and obligation. Thus, some of the patterns are possible, others are obligatory, etc. In addition, we have to distinguish between such shades of modality as: the expert knows that...; the expert thinks that...; the expert wants...; the expert believes that...
The possible inconsistency of empirical knowledge is a natural consequence of the basic laws of dialectics, and these contradictions should not always be resolved in the field of knowledge, but on the contrary, it is the contradictions that most often serve as the starting point in the reasoning of experts.
Incomplete knowledge is associated with the impossibility of a complete description of the subject area. The analyst’s task is to limit this incompleteness to a certain framework of “completeness”, i.e. narrow the boundaries of the subject area, or introduce a number of restrictions and assumptions that simplify the problem.
Systematicity. The system-structural approach to knowledge (going back to Hegel) orients the analyst to consider any subject area from the standpoint of the laws of the systemic whole and the interaction of its constituent parts. Modern structuralism comes from a multi-level hierarchical organization of any object, i.e. all processes and phenomena can be considered as many smaller subsets (features, details) and, conversely, any objects can (and should) be considered as elements of higher classes of generalizations.
Objectivity. The process of cognition is deeply subjective, i.e. it essentially depends on the characteristics of the knowing subject itself. Subjectivity begins with the description of facts and increases as the idealization of objects deepens.
Consequently, it is more correct to talk about the depth of understanding than about the objectivity of knowledge. Understanding is co-creation, the process of interpreting an object from the point of view of the subject. This is a complex and ambiguous process that takes place in the depths of human consciousness and requires the mobilization of all intellectual and emotional abilities of a person. The analyst should focus all his efforts on understanding the problem. Psychology confirms the fact that people who quickly and successfully solve intellectual problems spend most of their time understanding it, while those who quickly start looking for a solution most often cannot find it.
Historicism. This criterion is related to development. Knowledge of the present is knowledge of the past that gave birth to it. And although most expert systems provide a “horizontal” slice of knowledge - without taking into account time (in statics), a knowledge engineer must always consider processes taking into account time changes - both the connection with the past and the connection with the future. For example, the structure of the knowledge field and the knowledge base must allow adjustment and correction, both during the development period and during operation of the expert system.
Having considered the main criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge, we will now try to describe its structure. The methodological structure of knowledge can be presented as a sequence of stages (Figure 12), which we will consider from the perspective of a knowledge engineer.
Description and synthesis of facts. This is like the “dry residue” of conversations between an analyst and an expert. Carefulness and completeness of keeping protocols during the extraction process and punctual “homework” on them are the key to a productive first stage of cognition.
In practice, it turns out to be difficult to adhere to the principles of objectivity and consistency described above. Most often, at this stage, facts are simply collected and, as it were, thrown into a “common bag”; An experienced knowledge engineer often immediately tries to find a “shelf” or “box” for each fact, thereby implicitly preparing for the conceptualization stage.
Figure 12 - Structure of cognition
Establishing connections and patterns. In the expert's head, connections are established, although often implicitly; The engineer’s task is to identify the framework of the expert’s conclusions. When reconstructing an expert's reasoning, a knowledge engineer can rely on the two most popular theories of thinking - logical and associative. At the same time, if the logical theory, thanks to its ardent admirers in the person of mathematicians, is widely cited and exploited in every possible way in works on artificial intelligence, then the second, associative theory, is less known and popular, although it also has ancient roots. The beauty and harmony of logical theory should not obscure the sad fact that people rarely think in terms of mathematical logic.
Associative theory represents thinking as a chain of ideas connected by common concepts. The main operations of such thinking are associations acquired on the basis of various connections; recalling past experiences; trial and error with occasional success; habitual (“automatic”) reactions, etc.
Construction of an idealized model. To build a model that reflects the subject’s understanding of the subject area, a specialized language is needed with which one can describe and construct those idealized models of the world that arise in the process of thinking. This language is created gradually with the help of the categorical apparatus adopted in the corresponding subject area, as well as formal symbolic means of mathematics and logic. For empirical, subject areas, such a language has not yet been developed, and the field of knowledge, which the analyst will describe in a semi-formalized way, may be the first step towards creating such a language.
Explanation and prediction of models. This final stage of the structure of knowledge is at the same time a partial criterion for the truth of the acquired knowledge. If the identified expert knowledge system is complete and objective, then on its basis it is possible to make predictions and explain any phenomena from a given subject area. Typically, knowledge bases of expert systems suffer from fragmentation and modularity (unrelatedness) of components. All this does not allow us to create truly intelligent systems that, like humans, could predict new patterns and explain cases not explicitly stated in the database. The exception here is knowledge generation systems, which are focused on generating new knowledge and “prediction”.
In conclusion, we list the most common failures associated with epistemological problems of knowledge engineering:
· scrappy, fragmented knowledge (due to violations of the principle of consistency or errors in choosing the focus of attention);
· inconsistency of knowledge (due to the natural inconsistency of nature and society, the incompleteness of the extracted knowledge, the incompetence of the expert);
· erroneous classification (due to incorrect determination of the number of classes or inaccurate description of the class);
· erroneous level of generalization (due to excessive detail or generalization of object classes).
LECTURE 2
THE BASIC QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY
In philosophy there is a basic question, the answer to which allows us to determine which movement the philosopher belongs to. This question was formed in Antiquity, but was finally formalized in the work of Friedrich Engels “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy” (Chapter 2). Today the question is as follows: “the relationship between thinking and being, spirit and matter.” And it is considered in two aspects:
1. Ontological aspect of the main question of philosophy
What comes first – matter or consciousness (spirit)?
A) Materialism– recognition of the objectivity, primacy, uncreatability and indestructibility of matter, which exists outside and independently of consciousness and is the fundamental principle of reality. Consciousness is secondary to matter.
The most prominent representative of materialism in ancient times was Democritus, one of the founders of atomism, who recognized two principles: atoms and emptiness. Atoms are indivisible particles of matter, they are unchanging, eternal, in constant motion and differ from each other only in shape, size, position and order. Bodies are formed from the combination of atoms.
The following forms of materialism are distinguished:
· Naive (spontaneous) – Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Laozi – characterized by a lack of theoretical elaboration of the ideas of materialism, the validity of the basic principles
· Metaphysical – 17-18 centuries. – F. Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke – consideration of nature as an immediate given, always equal to itself, non-developing whole
· Anthropological - Feuerbach, Chernyshevsky - man is the highest and most perfect work of nature, the knowledge of which provides the key to its secrets, the unity of man and nature is emphasized
· Dialectical materialism – Marx, Engels
B) Idealism– consciousness, spiritual, mental, mental is primary, and material, natural, physical is secondary.
The following forms of idealism are distinguished:
· Objective – Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Hegel, Schelling – the transpersonal universal spiritual formation (idea in general, absolute Spirit, God, world mind) is accepted as the fundamental basis of reality. Plato: " World there is the development of the world mind, the world spirit"
· Subjective – Berkeley, Fichte, Hume, Nietzsche, Spengler – the spiritual is primary and it depends on the will and consciousness of a person, his feelings, experiences, moods, actions. Berkeley: “in the world around me I feel only my sensations” ( Human)
Modern idealism is represented by neo-Thomism (objective idealism), neo-positivism and existentialism (subjective idealism)
IN) Dualism– Descartes, Kant – spiritual and material substances are equal principles, they exist simultaneously and independently of each other.
2. Epistemological aspect of the main question of philosophy
Do we know the world?
A) Materialism– let’s discover the world!!! This issue is closely related to the development of science in general. Even if there are no answers to some questions now, they will be after some time, since science is constantly developing. Thus, the line between “I don’t know” and “I know” is very thin.
B) Idealism– there are things and processes that a person can understand, and there are ones that he cannot
C) Agnosticism – the world is not knowable!!!
Hume: We do not know not only what this world is like, but whether it really exists. After all, a person passes the world through his consciousness and therefore has only a subjective picture of the world. There are as many models of the world as there are people. Man is thus immersed in his own chimeras, in his own invented world. A person’s eyes are open – the world exists, but their eyes are closed – it does not exist. And since man only invented the world, it is impossible to know it.
Kant: introduced the concept of “thing in itself,” the essence of which cannot be known. You can only know the individual processes that this thing causes. Thus, a person cannot find answers to simple questions, and that means he should not even attempt to understand the world.
In the epistemological sense-
Le Feuerbach's concept of “sensibility” means
la, firstly, the revaluation of sensationalism, moreover, in its
materialistic understanding, taking into the new European
Pei's philosophy began with Locke and asserted
in polemics with subjective idealism in the works
Condillac, La Mettrie, Diderot, Helvetius, Holbach.
Feuerbach consistently and persistently pursued
the idea that the process of cognition of objective re-
reality, real existence has its basic
438
som sensory perceptions, sensations, contemplations,
caused by the influence of cognizable objects on
sense organs. He argued that “only that mental
is real, objective, which is determined and used
governed by sensory contemplation; only in this way
In this case, thinking is thinking with objective use.
mud." In the refusal of thinking to rely on the sensory
contemplation Feuerbach saw an epistemological reason
fallacies of "speculative philosophy". Full from-
a break in thinking from sensuality is fraught, according to Feuerba-
hu, the danger that it ceases to have its own
subject reality. “The world,” he noted, “
open only to an open head, but only feelings
and are the openings of the head." Feuerbach underlining-
the idea that thinking should be based on sensual
ity not only at the beginning of the cognitive process,
but throughout its entire length: true “thinking
does not flow in a straight line in identity with itself
yourself, but is interrupted by moments of sensual contemplation
tsaniya". Feuerbach considered this appeal to sensuality
became necessary to establish whether the
whether the conclusions of thinking correspond to reality. Is-
using Fichte's image, but sensually re-
interpreting it, Feuerbach wrote that “it is clear as the sun
tse, only sensual; just where it begins
sensual, all doubt and dispute ends.”
In a more strict form, the same idea about the sensory
knowledge as objective comprehension and as criteria
the truth of rational propositions is expressed by Fei-
Erbach in the following words: “Undoubtedly, directly
Actually, only that which is sensory is certain.
a tangible, contemplated object, a sensory object
cherished." Sensory contemplation as a basis
Feuerbach interpreted knowledge and criterion of truth as
experience in this sense spoke of the need for
constant interaction of thinking with experience (called
Calling this interaction a “dialogue,” Feuerbach saw
it contains a significant manifestation of the “true dialectic”
ki" (130. 1. 196, 200, 187).
In what Feuerbach spoke about epistemological
meaning of sensuality, is already contained and determined
lazy view of thinking. Feuerbach's epistemology
not one-sidedly sensualistic. Thinking understands-
in it as necessary and, in a certain sense, supreme
our cognitive ability: namely thinking,
439
based on feelings and verified by feelings, from
reveals and expresses scientific and philosophical ideas
mud. All religious hoaxes presented
in Feuerbach, in fact, as the fruits of an erroneous
sensuality, not controlled and not corrected,
my strict thought. Rejecting the view of reason and feeling
identity as completely independent and perfect-
cognitive abilities that are distinct from each other
properties, Feuerbach thought about their essence
nom unity. According to him, sensory knowledge
in its full development passes into the knowledge of rationality
nal: “The universal feeling is reason.” Accurate
but Feuerbach also imagined the relationship between
true philosophical rationality and experience,
declaring that "real speculation, or philosophy,
is nothing less than authentic and universal
experience" (130. 1.201,121). Didn't go further than what you-
was driven by the materialistic epistemology of the 18th century,
these provisions of Feuerbach about the unity of rational-
th with the sensory and empirical were expressed
moreover, only in thesis form, which left no answer.
that essential question is how exactly can
and the said unity must be realized. Character
Feuerbach's teristics of the rational stage of cognition
in fact, only through emphasizing its dependence
bridge from the sensory level did not allow us to identify
the specifics of rational cognition and see the quality
natural leap in the transition to it.
Revealing and rejecting idealistic mystifications
tions contained in Hegelian rationalism, Fey-
Erbach failed to identify the presence of “rational
natural grains" of a dialectical nature and implementation
to achieve their materialistic processing. Problem
abstractions in the process of cognition - this is for Feuerbach
only the problem of delusion inherent in thinking
niya, which breaks away from sensuality. Development
the movement of cognitive thought fought by Hegel from
abstract to concrete was characterized by Fei-
Erbach as a “perverted path” along which “we
we will never come to the genuine, objective reality
creativity, but always only to the realization of one’s own
abstractions..." The fact is that in this movement Fei-
Erbach noticed only the transition declared by Hegel
"from ideal to real." From Feier's point of view
Bach, the basis for which was again given by you
440
renderings of Hegel himself, but which was, in essence,
ity, one-sided and not taking into account the presence
Hegelian logic also has a different content, pre-
the “concrete concept” presented in it is God,
turned into a concept." Feuerbach stated that “but
This philosophy sees the concrete not in the abstract.
tion", and in sensory reality and only
in it. Feuerbach examined Hegelian logic as a whole
trival only as a completely perverted - under the influence -
by the suppression of unresisted theological impulses - iso-
reflection of the activity of human thinking:
“The essence of Hegel’s logic comes down to thinking,
assured of its certainty,” i.e., represented
mu as non-human thinking; therefore this lo-
geek “alienates and robs a person of his own
new essence, his own activity.” At
such an understanding of Hegelian logic was natural
important that the task according to its materialistic
Feuerbach limited the “reversal” to the restoration
the emergence of a view of thinking as a human activity
eternal reason (130.1, 121, 176, 180, 168).
Let us pay attention to the fact that Feuerbian epistemology
ha was emphatically cognitivist. He thought
human cognitive abilities sufficient for
in order to think of things as they are
turn out to be true." Feuerbach was convinced
awaited not only the opportunity to find “the truth in its
undisguised, pure, obvious form" (130. 1. 194, 115),
but also that such a truth has already been revealed in his
own writings. Fundamental "secrets"
theology, religion and previous philosophy, according to
plunged human consciousness into the fog of mysticism
tions, Feuerbach considered his “new fi-
losophy”, proclaiming to humanity “anthropolo-
gy" just forever established the highest world-
ideological truth. As for the special sciences, then
Feuerbach considered them capable of going as deep as
anywhere far into the areas they study
ness. Agnosticism seemed to Feuerbach
so untenable that in their historical and philosophical
he did not consider it necessary to expose Sofia's works
its detailed critical examination. Kan-
Tovian agnosticism Feuerbach in his review of the German
bypassed classical philosophy almost silently
hope, believing that in the works of Fichte, Schelling,
441
For Hegel, it has already been sufficiently overcome. When
in the 50s of the XIX century. began to spread in Germany
“physiological idealism”, which summed up the can-
Soviet agnosticism natural scientific justification,
Feuerbach did not fail to criticize him.
More on the topic Epistemological aspect:
- 3. ABOUT RIGHT IN THE OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE SENSE. GNOSEOLOGICAL ASPECT (N.I. Matuzov)
- (Rationalism and irrationalism as philosophical and worldview orientations: epistemological content, ontological and value foundations)
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy associated with the theory of knowledge, or the theory of reflection of reality in human consciousness. The epistemological aspect (AP) of knowledge extraction unites the methodological problems of obtaining new scientific knowledge, since when creating a knowledge base, an expert often formulates for the first time some patterns that until that moment constituted his personal experience. Knowledge engineering as a science, so to speak, is doubly epistemological - first, reality is reflected in the consciousness of the expert and then the activities and experience of the expert are interpreted by the consciousness of the knowledge engineer, which already serves as the basis for constructing the third interpretation - the knowledge field of the expert system (see Fig. 3.5) . The process of cognition, in essence, is aimed at creating an internal representation of the surrounding world in the human mind.
The subject of this textbook is mainly the mapping processes 12 and 13 (II - studied by psychology and philosophy); interpretation of 13 will be discussed in detail below.
If we describe processes 12 and 13 in the terminology introduced in Chapter 1, then we are dealing with the transformation of expert knowledge and theoretical (book) experience into a field of knowledge which is the materialization of the knowledge engineer’s world model.
In the process of knowledge extraction, the analyst is mainly interested in the component associated with the non-canonical individual knowledge of experts, since subject areas requiring precisely this type of knowledge are considered most susceptible to the implementation of expert systems. These areas are usually called empirical, since they have accumulated a large volume of individual empirical facts and observations, while their theoretical generalization is a matter for the future.
If we assume that a knowledge engineer extracts only a fragment, that is, a part from the expert’s knowledge system, then his task is, firstly, to try to ensure that the structure matches, and secondly, to reflect as fully as possible
Cognition is often accompanied by the creation of new concepts and theories. Sometimes an expert generates new knowledge directly during a conversation with an analyst. Such
generation of knowledge is also useful for the expert himself, who until that moment may not have been aware of a number of relationships between the laws of the subject area. The analyst can also be helped here by the tools of system methodology, which allows the use of well-known principles of the logic of scientific research and the conceptual hierarchy of science. This methodology forces him to always strive to see the general behind the particular, that is, to build chains.
(see scan)
It is not always possible to reach the last link of this chain, but the very desire to move can be extremely fruitful. This approach is fully consistent with the structure of knowledge itself, which has two levels:
1. Empirical (observations, phenomena).
2. Theoretical (laws, abstractions, generalizations).
But theory is not only a coherent system for generalizing scientific knowledge, it is also a certain way of producing new knowledge. The main methodological criteria for scientific character, which allow us to consider new knowledge itself and the method of obtaining it scientific, are [Korshunov, Mantalov, 1988]:
(see scan)
Internal consistency (S31)
Main characteristics of empirical knowledge:
(see scan)
At first glance, the criterion of internal consistency of knowledge does not correspond to the real characteristics that describe knowledge from the point of view of the layer. These characteristics of empirical knowledge emphasize its “multiformity” - so often facts do not agree with each other, definitions contradict, criteria are diffuse, etc. Analyst , who knows the peculiarities of empirical knowledge, has to smooth out these “roughnesses” of empirics. The modality of knowledge means the possibility of its existence in various categories, that is, in the constructions of existence and obligation. Thus, some of the patterns are possible, others are obligatory, etc. In addition, we have to distinguish between such shades of modality as:
The expert knows that...;
The expert thinks then..,;
The expert wants you...;
The expert believes that...
The possible inconsistency of empirical knowledge is a natural consequence of the basic laws of dialectics, and these contradictions are not always
must be resolved in the field of knowledge, but on the contrary, it is contradictions that most often serve as the starting point in the reasoning of experts.
Incomplete knowledge is associated with the impossibility of a complete description of the subject area. The analyst’s task is to limit this incompleteness to a certain framework of “completeness,” that is, to narrow the boundaries of the subject area or introduce a number of restrictions and assumptions that simplify the problem.
Systematicity (S32)
The system-structural approach to knowledge (going back to Hegel) orients the analyst to consider any subject area from the standpoint of the laws of the systemic whole and the interaction of its constituent parts.
Modern structuralism proceeds from a multi-level hierarchical organization of any object, that is, all processes and phenomena can be considered as many smaller subsets (features, details) and, conversely, any objects can (and should) be considered as elements of higher classes of generalizations. For example, a systemic view of the problem of structuring knowledge allows us to see its hierarchical organization. More details about this in paragraph 3.4.
Objectivity (S33)
The process of cognition is deeply subjective, that is, it significantly depends on the characteristics of the knowing subject himself. “Facts exist for one eye and are absent for the other” (Whipper). Thus, subjectivity begins with the description of facts and increases as the idealization of objects deepens.
Consequently, it is more correct to talk about the depth of understanding than about the objectivity of knowledge. Understanding is co-creation, the process of interpreting an object from the point of view of the subject. This is a complex and ambiguous process that takes place in the depths of human consciousness and requires the mobilization of all intellectual and emotional abilities of a person. The analyst should focus all his efforts on understanding the problem.
There is a well-known result in psychology [Velichkovsky, Kapitsa, 1987] confirming the fact that people who quickly and successfully solve intellectual problems spend most of their time understanding it, while poor solvers quickly begin to search for a solution and most often fail to find one. find.
Historicism (S34)
This criterion is related to development. Knowledge of the present is knowledge of the past that gave birth to it. And although most expert systems provide a “horizontal” slice of knowledge - without taking into account time (in statics), a knowledge engineer must always consider processes taking into account time changes - both the connection with the past and the connection with the future. For example, the structure of the knowledge field and the knowledge base must allow adjustment and correction both during the development period and during operation of the ES.
Having considered the main criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge, we will now try to describe its structure. The methodological structure of cognition can be presented as a certain sequence of stages [Korshunov, Mantalov, 1988]. The parameters fit organically into this structure of cognition, which can be presented as a sequence of stages described below from the perspective of a knowledge engineer:
Description and synthesis of facts;
Establishing logical and mathematical connections, deduction and induction of laws;
Construction of an idealized model;
Explanation and prediction of phenomena.
E_1. Description and summarization of facts
Carefulness and completeness of keeping protocols during the extraction process and punctual “homework” on them are the key to a productive first stage of cognition and material for describing and summarizing facts.
In practice, it turns out to be difficult to adhere to the principles of objectivity and consistency described above. Most often, at this stage, facts are simply collected and, as it were, thrown into a “common bag”; An experienced knowledge engineer often immediately tries to find a “shelf” or “box” for each fact, thereby implicitly preparing for the conceptualization stage.
E_2. Establishing connections and patterns
In the expert’s memory, all concepts are linked and patterns are established, although often the engineer’s implicit task is to identify the framework of the expert’s conclusions. When reconstructing an expert's reasoning, a knowledge engineer can rely on the two most popular theories of thinking - logical and associative. Moreover, if the logical theory, thanks to its ardent admirers in the person of mathematicians, is widely cited and exploited in every possible way in works on artificial intelligence, then the second, associative theory, is much less known and popular, although it also has ancient roots. Thus, R. Feynman in his “Lectures on Physics” notes that in physics the Babylonian, rather than the Greek, method of constructing knowledge is still predominant. It is known that ancient Eastern mathematicians were able to do complex calculations, but their formulas were not logically linked. In contrast, Greek mathematics is deductive (e.g. Euclid's Elements). Traditional logic forms criteria that guarantee accuracy, validity, and consistency of general concepts of reasoning and conclusions. Its foundations were laid in Aristotle’s Organon in the 4th century. BC e. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) made a great contribution to the development of logic.
The knowledge engineer himself uses the operations of traditional logic and highlights them in the expert’s reasoning scheme. These are the following operations:
Definition;
Comparison and Distinction;
Abstraction;
Generalization;
Classification;
Education of judgments;
Inference;
Compiling syllogisms, etc.
However, the beauty and harmony of logical theory should not obscure the fact that a person rarely thinks in the categories of mathematical logic [Pospelov, 1989]. Association theory represents thinking as a chain of ideas connected by common concepts. The main operations of such thinking are:
Associations acquired through various connections;
Recalling past experiences; trial and error with occasional success;
Habitual (“automatic”) reactions, etc.
However, these two theories do not exhaust the entire variety of psychological schools. Gestalt psychology can be of great interest for knowledge engineering. One of its founders is the outstanding German psychologist M. Wertheimer (1880-1943). Gestalt (German: Gestalt) refers to the principle of integrity of perception - as the basis of thought. Gestalt psychologists try to highlight in everything a certain holistic image or structure as the basis for understanding the processes and phenomena of the surrounding world. This theory is close to the theory of frames and the object approach and is aimed at comprehending deep knowledge, which is characterized by stability and symmetry. In this case, the so-called “center of the situation” is important, in relation to which knowledge about the subject area develops.
For a knowledge engineer, this means that, while identifying various fragments of knowledge, he should not forget about the main thing, the gestalt of the fragment, which influences the remaining components and connects them into some structural unit. A gestalt can be a certain main principle, or an idea, or an expert’s hypothesis, or his belief in the power of some individual concepts. This principle is rarely formulated explicitly by the expert; it is always, as it were, behind the scenes, and it is the art of the knowledge engineer to discover this basic gestalt of the expert.
In Gestalt theory there is a law of “striving for a good Gestalt,” according to which the structures of consciousness strive for harmony, coherence, and simplicity. This is close to the old classical principle of Occam's razor - "entities should not multiply unnecessarily" - and is formulated as Wertheimer's principle of pregnancy [Wertheimer, 1987]: "The organization of a field tends to be as simple and clear as given conditions allow." Reasoning about Gestalt leads close to the third stage in the structure of cognition.
E_3. Construction of an idealized model
To build a model that reflects the subject’s understanding of the subject area, a specialized language is needed with which one can describe and construct those idealized models of the world that arise in the process of thinking. This language is created gradually with the help of the categorical apparatus adopted in the corresponding subject area, as well as formal and symbolic means of mathematics and logic. For empirical subject areas, such a language has not yet been developed, and the field of knowledge, which the analyst will describe in a semi-formalized way, may be the first step towards creating such a language.
Any cognitive reflection includes convention, that is, simplification and idealization. A knowledge engineer needs to master such specific epistemological techniques as idealization, coarsening, and abstraction, which allow the model to adequately display the real picture of the world. These techniques bring the properties and characteristics of objects to the limits that make it possible to reproduce the laws of reality in a more concise form (without the influence of unimportant details).
On the thorny path of knowledge, a proven dialectical approach turns out to be the best “guide.” A knowledge engineer who seeks to understand a problem domain must be willing to constantly change his already established ways of perceiving and evaluating the world and even abandon them. In this case, the correctness of the judgments that seem the most obvious should be checked most carefully.
E_4. Explanation and prediction of models
This final stage in the structure of knowledge is at the same time a partial criterion for the truth of the acquired knowledge. If the identified expert knowledge system is complete and objective, then on its basis it is possible to make predictions and explain any phenomena from a given subject area. Typically, ES knowledge bases suffer from fragmentation and modularity (unrelatedness) of components. All this does not allow us to create truly intelligent systems that, like humans, could predict new patterns and explain cases not explicitly stated in the database. The exception here is training systems that are focused on generating new knowledge and “prediction”.
The proposed methodology equips the analyst with a device that allows him to avoid traditional mistakes that lead to incompleteness, inconsistency, and fragmentation of the knowledge base, and indicates the direction in which developers need to move. And although today most knowledge bases are developed only up to stage E_3, knowledge of the complete scheme enriches and deepens the design process.
The distinction between being and non-being, one and multiple, unchangeable and constant could not but be accompanied by reflection on their essence and interconnection. Along with the dogmatism of religious faith, thinking consciousness developed, the area accessible to it steadily expanded, techniques and methods of cognition multiplied and improved. If, say, in the Brahmins knowledge was ritual, that is, it came down to memorizing certain formulas, recalling this or that image (mythologem), accompanied by ritual action, then the ancient Indian philosophical schools were characterized by the desire to develop methods of rational knowledge. Rationalism was fueled by doubt regarding the inflexibility of the authority of the Vedic tradition.
The heated debate that characterized especially the 7th-1st centuries BC led, on the one hand, to the development of methodological schemes capable of rejecting any position (ajnanavada - literally “agnosticism”), and on the other, to the development of pramanavada - the doctrine of means achievements of knowledge. The Samkhya school recognized three pramana: perception (pratyaksha), logical inference (anuman) and evidence of authority (shabda), the Nyaikas added a fourth pramana - “comparison”, and mimansa - “supposition”, etc.
The variety of epistemological theories of Ancient India is difficult to structure. And yet, the Russian scientist F.I. Shcherbatskaya, still the most authoritative researcher of Buddhist logic in the world, believed it was possible to divide them into two groups: realistic and non-realistic epistemology. The first included almost all directions of ancient Indian thought, except Buddhism. Realistic epistemology boiled down to the recognition of the knowability of the external world in its true reality: “The entire structure of the external world, its relationships and causality - all this is knowable through the senses. Intelligence, or reason, is a quality created in the soul of an individual with the help of special factors: it is not the essence of the soul. By inference the intellect cognizes the same objects which have already been cognized through the senses, but it cognizes them with a much greater degree of clarity and distinctness." Realist epistemology was most thoroughly developed and defended in the Nyaya Vaisesika.
The most decisive opposition to the realistic theory of knowledge was represented by Buddhist logic, the outstanding representative of which was Nagarjuna (2nd century) from the Madhyamika school. Buddhist logicians argued quite convincingly that there is truly nothing that is not relative in a certain aspect, and therefore the ultimate reality of everything that exists can be denied. The “own nature” of things is not involved in cause-and-effect relationships, and therefore it is located outside the world of phenomena, in the realm of eternal, unchanging essences, “participation” with which is impossible. Hence their unreality or emptiness: “There is no dharma that is not sunya.”
The lack of a clear distinction between being and non-being, reflecting the dominant position of naturalism in ancient Chinese philosophy, affected the peculiarities of the development of the theoretical-cognitive process here. Of the competing “hundred schools,” the Mohist school (founder Mo-tzu, 468-376 BC) was most concerned with epistemology, striving to understand such metaphysical categories as being, space, time, quality, causality and etc. The Mohists tried to characterize the process of cognition as a process of revealing causality, identifying the similarities and differences of phenomena, and dividing things into categories. They put forward three rules for testing the truth of knowledge. The first is “foundation,” which meant the experience and judgment of the ancient sages. The second is the “source,” that is, “the facts that common people heard and saw.” The third is “applicability,” otherwise practical use.
Epistemological and logical problems were also considered in the school of names and by Xunzi (c. 313-238 BC). However, the naturalistic attitude of ancient Chinese philosophy, with its inherent underdevelopment of ideas about the ideal and the transcendental, hindered the development of formal logic and dialectics as independent disciplines. Chinese philosophers practically did not operate with the concept of “contradiction” (and without this, dialectics is impossible). But Chinese philosophers widely used the concept of opposition.
Most widely, philosophical terms were used as a means of classification, establishing a hierarchical order of things. The lack of logical methodology was compensated by numerological methodology (xiang shu xue), consisting of numerical complexes and spatial structures interconnected symbolically, associatively, aesthetically, etc. Standard numerological schemes were based on three fundamental numbers: 2, 3 and their sum 5. From birth, things are inherent in binary, trinity and quintuple, Scribe Mo argued back in 510 BC. The ontological equivalents of the two are the forces of yin and yang, the trinity is heaven, earth and man, the pentad is the five elements.
Thus, the methodology of knowledge in Ancient China developed along two main directions - numerological, genetically dating back to archaic culture and fortune-telling practice, on the one hand, and protological, on the other. The studies of Soviet sinologists show that the formally universal nature of numerological methodology created certain advantages for it compared to the protological tradition. As a result, the latter gradually by the end of the 3rd century BC. left the intellectual scene.
