cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) (06/20/89)
In article <4597@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <4597@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >A jewel falls out of the net: >In article <2014@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) >differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Subsequently... >In article <CLINE.89Jun16170813@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu>, cline@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes: >> Consider a large database containing all the valid >> `C' constructs and idioms. It might be argued that the database contains >> lots of `knowledge', but it (the database) clearly is NOT an `expert'. >But, in fact, there are a lot of such databases out there that are referred >to by that very name... "expert systems". I'm not saying that knowledge isn't Necessary for being an expert. I'm just saying it's not sufficient. Knowledge all by itself is raw, and does not (IMHO) constitute expertise. Take someone who has a photographic memory. They might memorize `The C Programming Language' so that they can quote chapter after chapter. But they are NOT an expert until they can APPLY that knowledge. One of my principle research areas is AI, which is the reason I borrowed the example of a knowledge base. But a knowledge base without a sufficient inference engine is just a big file. Anyway, in practice I believe Peter is right. Generally speaking, ones expertise in an area increases simultaneously with ones knowledge in that area, because most of us don't have the luxury of memorizing gigabytes of knowledge, and then later, gradually, learn how to use that knowledge. (As an aside, I often see people passing through a phase after they've gained a little knowledge but before they've aquired real wisdom: Pride. This is the time where they _think_ they're an expert, but they're really not, and often [if they're extroverted] they get really obnoxious. Somebody-or-other once said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.") Marshall -- ________________________________________________________________ Marshall P. Cline ARPA: cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu ECE Department UseNet: uunet!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!cline Clarkson University BitNet: BH0W@CLUTX Potsdam, NY 13676 AT&T: 315-268-6591
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/22/89)
A jewel falls out of the net: In article <2014@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Subsequently... In article <CLINE.89Jun16170813@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu>, cline@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes: > Consider a large database containing all the valid > `C' constructs and idioms. It might be argued that the database contains > lots of `knowledge', but it (the database) clearly is NOT an `expert'. But, in fact, there are a lot of such databases out there that are referred to by that very name... "expert systems". > Thus the original poster asked the wrong question. It's not what you > need to know, since NO volume of knowledge can make one an expert. Yes. I think most expert systems should be referred to as "that-guy-in-the- corner-who-everyone-hates-but-can-answer-the-weirdest-questions systems". Or more succinctly "nerd systems". > [But this discussion probably belongs in "comp.lang.c.philosophy" :-)] I don't know. What groups would be appropriate? comp.ai? But that's an inet group :-<. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.