The Status of Knowledge
- How does knowledge fit in
- Place of knowledge in an intelligent agent
- What is knowledge
- Knowledge is justified true belief
- May want to deal with weaker notions than knowledge
- Things that are not (fully) justified
- Things that are "probably true"
- Things that are "true most of the time"
- What is knowledge representation?
- Representation is encoding into a data structure
- KR is encoding justified true beliefs into a data structure
- DS needs to represent justification, truth, belief
- Knowledge base
- A KB is KB0 and a derivability relation
|-L
- X is in KB iff KB0 |-L X
- Deduction, abduction, induction
- Semantic Theories
- Determine what terms in the KB designate
- Objects in the domain of discourse
- Truth values
- Example: Tarskian semantics for FOL, possible world semantics
- Issues to address
- Truth values may not be known
- Beware the excluded middle
- Must allow for contradictory elements of KB (but
not KB0)
- Meta-knowledge
- Epistemic status
- The degree of commitment to the information - weaker forms of
information such as belief.
- Knowledge is justified true belief
- Truth is the assertional status, discussed below
(computed by the semantic theory in use).
- Epistemic status deals with justification, which establishes
commitment.
- Belief - anything in the KB.
- Expected to be reasonable - no contradictory beliefs in
KB0
- May not be what should be known, e.g., may not reflect
reality due to an inaccessible environment.
- K(X) means "X is in the knowledge base", so K(X) captures
beliefs.
- Hypothesis is a justified belief
- Justification is not always absolute, especially in natural
kind terms.
- Hypothesis is different from knowledge as it's not fully
justified, i.e., an agent is not fully commited to hypotheses.
- Knowledge is absolutely justified
- Knowledge is that which we will not give up (easily),
and is taken as axiomatic.
- K(X) => X equates belief to knowledge
- Some "knowledge" turns out not, e.g., the earth is flat
- Belief ... Justified belief ... Justified true belief. E.g.,
- At start of semester I believe I'll pass
- After assessment I hypothesize I'll pass
- After results I know I've passed.
- Low(er) commitment to belief.
- May want to retract beliefs and hypotheses, but not knowledge
- May want to modify (retract and add a different one)
- Justification of inferred knowledge
- Deduction - take weakest epistemic form
- Abduction and induction - take weakest, but K+K=H
- Representation to be studied soon.
- Assertional status
- Confidence in the information - may not be true always, may have
exceptions, etc
- Example "Elephants are grey"
- All elephants are grey - reasonable, but false
- Typically elephants are grey - with high probability
- Elephants are grey with some exceptions
- First case is the traditional theory of meaning
- Meaning of elephant is determined by its properties
- All statements are true and non-contradictory
- Not useful for natural kind terms
- Second is prototype theory
- Terms are given prototype information
- If some information is untrue, that reduces assertional status
- Prototype theory is the basis for frames KR
- Third case allows definitional error.
- Use of KB must deal with this
- Representation to be studied soon.
Exam Style Questions
- Give a definition of "knowledge representation", based on appropriate
definitions of "knowledge" and "representation".
- Differentiate between the epistemic status and the assertional status
of knowledge. Give examples to illustrate.
- The epistemic status of a statement describes the commitment to that
statement.
In this light differentiate between belief, hypothesis and knowledge.
- What are deductive, abuductive, and inductive reasoning?
- Explain how the epistemic status of an inferred statement is derived
the epistemic statuses of its parents.
- What is the assertional status of a statement?
Give a simple example to illustrate three possible assertional statuses.
- Explain the differentiating features of possible worlds, syntactic, and
situational semantic theories.