- From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@gmu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:53:06 -0400
- To: Paulo CG Costa <pcosta@gmu.edu>, public-xg-urw3@w3.org
Paulo, >Dissonance happens when you have distinct pieces of evidence >supporting contradictory or conflicting views. >If a given piece of evidence supports hypothesis H and another >supports hypothesis notH, then we have contradiction, since H and >notH are mutually exclusive. EvidenceForH and EvidenceFornotH is not a contradiction! If we allow uncertainty, then EvidenceForH may be true when H is false, or EvidenceforNotH may be true when H is true. That is, false negatives and false positives are possible. They may be unlikely, but they are possible. >A Knowledge Base that has two axioms supporting contradictory >hypothesis is inconsistent. No, that's not true. A knowledge base that has two axioms that IMPLY contradictory hypotheses is inconsistent, but not a knowledge base with axioms that SUPPORT contradictory hypotheses. A knowledge base containing EvidenceForH and EvidenceFornotH is not necesssarily inconsistent (see above). >Conflicting evidence is another form of dissonance, this time >supporting hypothesis that are not mutually exclusive. That's not how I hvae always understood the term. I thought conflict meant evidence that supported inconsistent hypotheses, such as when a witness says he saw the suspect at the scene of the crime, and another witness who says she saw the suspect miles away, both at the time when the crime was committed. Kathy
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 11:51:28 UTC