Science, from OED, is "knowledge, understanding, secular knowledge, knowledge derived from experience, study, or reflection, acquired skill or ability, (...as granted by God)".
Excluding the last point in brackets, it seems that the key point is omitted, as unsurprisingly, no-one considered what happens if we advance knowledge, but in absentia humans. Imagine for a minute that we wrote out the knowledge in a book and hid it in the British Library amongst 18M books, or wrote it down in a language no-one knew and would take more than a lifetime to learn.
A similar argument could be made against the validity of automated proofs - a proof is "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything", where the elephant in the (court) room is the target for whom the fact or truth is established.
So yes, an AI can advance science and can proove facts, in principle, without violating these defniitions, but I suspect that if we went back in time to when the notions were first being firmed up, we might find some resistance to the idea that a mechanical discovery or proof that was never witnessed or understood knowingly by a living being might be contrary to the intentions.
Intention being the operative term - conscious people of free will, might want to take actions based on the knowledge or evidence, but why should they trust it if it isn't vouchsafed by other people? Sounds like "do this because I know better" or proof-by-authority, which is a well known logical fallacy, e.g. see here for why.
No comments:
Post a Comment