[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00390: Facts, Postulates and Inferences

From: Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:33:46 +0200
Subject: Facts, Postulates and Inferences

==================================================
My discussion with Aki involves several issues which IMO
are of general interest. Therefore I send this post to
all lists that may be concerned.
==================================================
Aki:
Please Consider the following case (which actually happened last year) :

THREE TV teams came to the Gaza strip to make a documentary film
about life in Gaza, the Israeli occupatuion, the HAMAS, JIHAD, etc.
The teams are :

1.from Al-Jazeera,
2. from the BBC,
3. from Israel State TV Channel 1.

All three directors do not use actors or tell people what to say or do.
The cameras and the Directors are merely recording facts.

Yet despite the recording of actual facts - without any staging or
directing - the three
teams
produce three very different films. Al-Jazeera will produced a
pro-Palestinian film.
Israeli TV
produced a pro-Israeli film, and the BBC produced a "balanced" film
distributing blame
equally between Israelis and Palestinians.

Who lied ?
=============================================
G:
All three, because they concealed behind fact-trees the
truth-wood of the war being fought by back seat Jewish
and Muslim fundamentalists using Palestinians and
Israelis as cannon fodder, which makes any blame attached
to Palestinians or Israelis a lie.
But we are not discussing Israel/Palestine, unless you
chose to make a theme of it. In which case I suggest to
start with my "ISRAEL-PALESTINE AND THE PIGS" in
http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/israel_palestine_and_the_pigs.html
==================================================
G:
Another example (just mentioned and not open to discussion unless
we open a thread dedicated to Holocaust and to Warsaw Ghetto.)

Nazi propaganda turned a documentary on Warsaw Ghetto totally
objective, showing Ghetto's reality without deformation, nor
interpretations. Thus one could see dirt, total lack of hygiene,
brutality of the Jewish police, cruel egoism of well dressed
people entering restaurants over children dying of hunger and
barefooted, because other Jews have robbed their shoes. The
implied postulate was that it's the natural attitude of Jews,
confirming and justifying the hatred they inspire.

However, the film produced opposite results and has been quickly
withdrawn. Somehow, subconsciously, many Germans refuted the
postulate of Jews being so by nature and considered them forced
to this state by Nazi police whose brutality they knew by
experience. For the first time, the quasi universal German
hatred of Jews got mixed with something like pity or compassion.

In this Nazi film, as in Gaza films, I would endeavor to refute
the postulate of victims' responsibility with factual information
at my disposal, thus reducing (messages of) the films to "lies".

Or, better said to "refuted assertions". "Lies", which we used
as colloquialism muddle the issue with its moral implication of
deliberately presenting a refuted assertion as "true", or rather
"certain".
==================================================
Aki:
I found this example very elevating.
However, it does not prove that "factual information" can reduce
another factual description of reality to a "lie".

You imply that a description of the PRESENT can be refuted by a
description of the PAST that lead to this PRESENT.

I gave the example of the 3 TV teams recording life in Gaza
merely as an exmple to illustrate my point that there is not
- nor can there ever be - a description of Reality which qualifies
for the title of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
==================================================
G:
Here we seem to quit the decency rules of a fair debate. When we
discuss between friends who know one another for years, we know
our mutual Weltanschaung, convictions and writings. For my part
I know Aki's Manifesto and respect it while deeply disagreeing
with some of its details, especially with that about freedom.

Now, let's suppose for argument's sake that Aki approves Sharon's
decision to withdraw from Gaza and I refute it as follows:

The only right decision can be that of people following the
DD Principle:
"Every citizen, one vote, on every political decision".

Thus, Sharon's decision is wrong,
Thus, withdrawal from Gaza should be canceled.

In so doing, I transgress several most elementary decency rules:

I steel Aki's idea of DD and his principle and quote it as mine.
I take it out of the Manifesto context and entirely misinterpret
it. I turn this stolen and misinterpreted statement against its
author.

Now, I'm sorry, Aki does exactly that to me. Indeliberately, it
goes without saying, but he does it and it makes us talk at
cross-purposes.

Aki must know that my RD Weltanschaung, all my convictions and
writings are based upon the Relativity Principle denying any
Absolute Truth. Thus preaching it to me seems a bit indelicate.
Then, he deforms my words: I never said that "factual information"
can reduce another factual description of reality to a "lie".
I never talked about "factual description of reality", whatever
this may mean.

Nor could I possibly "imply that a description of the PRESENT can
be refuted by a description of the PAST that lead to this PRESENT".
Whoever read my "Foundations in Ontology" knows that I rightly or
wrongly restrict with Sartre and Heidegger the domain of facts
to the PAST and thus cannot possibly situate any of them in PRESENT.
Clear case of putting alien words into my mouth and turning them
against me.

What I DID say is that in an inferencing structure topped with
postulates and bottomed with "facts", facts confirm or refute
postulates by means of the bottom-up inductive inference procedure.

Now, that may appear a bit complex and that's why I attribute
Aki's decency transgressions not to malignance, but to lack
of understanding.

In order to avoid similar misunderstandings, I'll try to
elucidate below the complex inferencing relations between
postulates and facts in theories, models and assertions.
I'll try to do my best, but the scope of the issue exceeds
by far that of an email. More detailed info may be found
in "Crisis of Logic" of
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm
==================================================
EXAMPLE 1 DIAGNOSTICS
---------------------
My Munich server is again on line. It contains a very simple
example of AI diagnostics with which you can play interactively.
In spite of its simplicity it illustrates exactly error diagnostic
AI systems I have designed and implemented for aircrafts and
spacecrafts.

Sign in and navigation:

http://213.69.121.236/
register or sign in
workshops1
view problems
diagnostics

Problem "diagnostics" is displayed with guidance contents.
The "first", top level "diagnostics" postulates that medical
knowledge considers diagnosis' of illnesses consisting of
syndroms and symptoms as structured below.

Navigation through structure:

[flat explosion] :
1 181 diagnostics 74 first
2 183 diagnosis_1_3 oof 80 mid
2 184 diagnosis_2_4 oof 1 mid
2 185 diagnosis_3_4 oof 6 mid

Now you may navigate with explosions/implosions:

[deep explosion of diagnosis_1_3]:
1 183 diagnosis_1_3 80 mid
2 186 syndrom_1 and 93 mid
3 191 symptom_a and 98 last
3 192 symptom_c and 96 last
3 193 symptom_f and 97 last
2 187 syndrom_3 and 89 mid
3 194 symptom_b and 95 last
3 195 symptom_g and 98 last
3 196 symptom_h and 94 last

[deep explosion of diagnosis_2_4]:
1 184 diagnosis_2_4 1 mid
2 188 syndrom_2 and 18 mid
3 194 symptom_b and 95 last
3 192 symptom_c and 96 last
3 197 symptom_d and 25 last
2 189 syndrom_4 and 12 mid
3 191 symptom_a and 98 last
3 198 symptom_e and 18 last
3 195 symptom_g and 98 last

[deep explosion of diagnosis_3_4]:
1 185 diagnosis_3_4 6 mid
2 189 syndrom_4 and 12 mid
3 191 symptom_a and 98 last
3 198 symptom_e and 18 last
3 195 symptom_g and 98 last
2 187 syndrom_3 and 89 mid
3 194 symptom_b and 95 last
3 195 symptom_g and 98 last repetition
3 196 symptom_h and 94 last

"Facts" are here the bottom "last" nodes. Their certainty is set
by the doctor based upon his examinations and his competence.
Eg:
symptom_a and 98 last got the certainty 98%
symptom_e and 18 last got the certainty 18%

Bottom-up induction procedure computes via syndroms the certainties
of diagnosis which we have seen above:
1 181 diagnostics 74 first
2 183 diagnosis_1_3 oof 80 mid
2 184 diagnosis_2_4 oof 1 mid
2 185 diagnosis_3_4 oof 6 mid

The factual info of symptoms strongly confirms the diagnosis_1_3
with 80% certainty and refutes diagnosis_2_4 and diagnosis_3_4
with certainties respectively 1% and 6%.
The postulate "diagnostics" confirmed with 74% indicates that the
inference may be considered as reliable.

In the light of these results the choice of diagnosis_2_4 for
treatment would be "false" (uncertain), or a "lie", if the doctor
chose it deliberately, sacrificing the patient for some extra
medical reasons.
==================================================
We shall now apply the same procedure to the Nazi film on the
Ghetto. The case has been run on my home machine, in order not
to use space of the WEB server for volatile cases.
--------------------------------------------------
A.Ignoring the factual info about Nazi procedures

1 postulate: jews are noxious subhumans 99
2 reported attitudes are free and 99
3 factual info restricted to film or 99
2 reported attitudes are forced not 1
3 factual info encompasses nazi procedures or 1

1 postulate: jews are noxious subhumans 99
2 reported attitudes are free and 99
2 reported attitudes are forced not 1

Inference from incomplete facts confirms Nazi postulate
"Jews are noxious subhumans".
--------------------------------------------------
B.Encompassing the factual info about Nazi procedures

1 postulate: jews are noxious subhumans 1
2 reported attitudes are free and 1
3 factual info restricted to film or 1
2 reported attitudes are forced not 99
3 factual info encompasses nazi procedures or 99

1 postulate: jews are noxious subhumans 1
2 reported attitudes are free and 1
2 reported attitudes are forced not 99

Inference from complete facts refutes Nazi postulate
"Jews are noxious subhumans".
=============================================
We shall now apply the same procedure to the films on
Israel/Palestine The case has been run on my home machine.

The case encompasses three postulates:

1.Blame on fundamentalists of both sides. It is postulated
that the war is fought by fundamentalists of both sides
over the heads of palestinian and israeli people who are
used as cannon fodder and who both are victims of the conflict

2.blame on israelis
3.blame on palestinians
--------------------------------------------------
A.Complete factual information

1 51 israel palestine 74 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 90 mid
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 90 last
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 9 mid
3 56 film with anti israeli message oof 90 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 90 last repetition
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 9 mid
3 57 film with anti palestinian message oof 90 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 90 last repetit

1 51 israel palestine 74 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 90 mid
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 9 mid
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 9 mid

Inference from complete facts puts blame on fundamentalists of
both sides and refutes the blame put on israeli and palestinian
people.
--------------------------------------------------
B.Facts on fundamentalists' involvement are ignored. Messages of
both films are acknowledged.

1 51 israel palestine 9 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 1 mid
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 89 mid
3 56 film with anti israeli message oof 90 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last repetition
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 89 mid
3 57 film with anti palestinian message oof 90 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last

1 51 israel palestine 9 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 1 mid
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 89 mid
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 89 mid

Inference from incomplete facts puts blame on israeli and
palestinian people. It's chaotic, open to biased misinterpretations
and does not point to any solution or action.
--------------------------------------------------
C.Facts on fundamentalists' involvement are ignored. Only the
film with anti israeli message is acknowledged.

1 51 israel palestine 88 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 1 mid
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 89 mid
3 56 film with anti israeli message oof 90 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last repetition
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 0 mid
3 57 film with anti palestinian message oof 1 last
3 58 factual info on fundamentalists and 1 last repetition

1 51 israel palestine 88 first
2 53 postulate: blame on fundamentalists of both sides oof 1 mid
2 54 postulate: blame on israelis oof 89 mid
2 55 postulate: blame on palestinians oof 0 mid

Inference from incomplete facts puts blame on israeli people.
It's biased and calls for one sided actions which, in the light
of complete info, may only further victimize Palestinians.
==================================================
Georges.
==================================================



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]