000			03554nam a22004935i 4500
001			978-3-642-35359-8
003			DE-He213
005			20200420220213.0
007			cr nn 008mamaa
008			130131s2013 gw | s |||| 0|eng d
020			_a9783642353598 _9978-3-642-35359-8
024	7		_a10.1007/978-3-642-35359-8 _2doi
050		4	_aQ342
072		7	_aUYQ _2bicssc
072		7	_aCOM004000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a006.3 _223
100	1		_aPiscopo, Carlotta. _eauthor.
245	1	4	_aThe Metaphysical Nature of the Non-adequacy Claim _h[electronic resource] : _bAn Epistemological Analysis of the Debate on Probability in Artificial Intelligence / _cby Carlotta Piscopo.
264		1	_aBerlin, Heidelberg : _bSpringer Berlin Heidelberg : _bImprint: Springer, _c2013.
300			_aX, 146 p. _bonline resource.
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
490	1		_aStudies in Computational Intelligence, _x1860-949X ; _v464
505	0		_aIntroduction -- Historical and philosophical background -- Uncertainty in AI and the debate on probability -- The non-adequacy claim in the literature -- The metaphysical character of the non-adequacy claim -- Claim.
520			_aOver the last two decades, the field of artificial intelligence has experienced a separation into two schools that hold opposite opinions on how uncertainty should be treated. This separation is the result of a debate that began at the end of the 1960's when AI first faced the problem of building machines required to make decisions and act in the real world. This debate witnessed the contraposition between the mainstream school, which relied on probability for handling uncertainty, and an alternative school, which criticized the adequacy of probability in AI applications and developed alternative formalisms. The debate has focused on the technical aspects of the criticisms raised against probability while neglecting an important element of contrast. This element is of an epistemological nature, and is therefore exquisitely philosophical. In this book, the historical context in which the debate on probability developed is presented and the key components of the technical criticisms therein are illustrated. By referring to the original texts, the epistemological element that has been neglected in the debate is analyzed in detail. Through a philosophical analysis of the epistemological element it is argued that this element is metaphysical in Popper's sense. It is shown that this element cannot be tested nor possibly disproved on the basis of experience and is therefore extra-scientific. Ii is established that a philosophical analysis is now compelling in order to both solve the problematic division that characterizes the uncertainty field and to secure the foundations of the field itself.
650		0	_aEngineering.
650		0	_aEpistemology.
650		0	_aArtificial intelligence.
650		0	_aComputational intelligence.
650	1	4	_aEngineering.
650	2	4	_aComputational Intelligence.
650	2	4	_aArtificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics).
650	2	4	_aEpistemology.
710	2		_aSpringerLink (Online service)
773	0		_tSpringer eBooks
776	0	8	_iPrinted edition: _z9783642353581
830		0	_aStudies in Computational Intelligence, _x1860-949X ; _v464
856	4	0	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35359-8
912			_aZDB-2-ENG
942			_cEBK
999			_c51436 _d51436