Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:41:01 11/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2000 at 09:58:56, Joe Besogn wrote: >You are, imo, running round in circles due to the usual reasons of vested >interests, but also because you argue without even a basic understanding of the >terminology. > >Try: http://cgi.student.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/d95-aeh/get/kuhneng > >for a concise description of Kuhn's ideas in the "History of Scientific >Revolutions". > >Then, perhaps, there might be some interest in reading what you have to say on >the subject amongst the more enlightened. > >The descriptions in the article, imo, almost exactly mirror actions and progress >within computer chess. That's imo. > >Although you are unlikely to reach agreement on new/old paradigms, existence of, >or whatever, at least you'll have some new agreement on what words mean. That >helps. > >Also useful for you will be the realisation that a paradigm is not a 'chess >playing computer program', but a 'system of thought'. The fact that it is >possible to take a conventional chess program and apply new ideas to it, does >not mean that a paradigm shift has not taken place. The revolutionary shift is >in 'ways of thinking' or in 'world view' - rather more difficult than changing >code. The paradigm shift, therefore, is in you, in your own head. Some make this >shift faster than others, one revolutionary starts it off, some see it soon, >some see it later, some never see it at all. The ones that don't see it, deny it >exists. The ones that do see it, say "you need to think different". The ones who >see it late claim "it's evolutionary, I could do that". > >Why do I always try to help them ?! Hi. You are right that sharper definitions of words helps, but not so much and not always is neccesary, anyway. There is room, in a casual debate as those performed here, to some fuzzy logic. I think every one here -or almost- knows how radical a "paradigm" is, but nevertheless we all understand that, when Thorsten uses it here, he is just referring to a more modest thing: a new way to understand how to program certain functions of a chess program. In that sense the word is useful and it would be a kind of pedantry to argue againts him on the base of the exact definition of what a paradigm is. Besides, to define words tends only to open another field of debate instead of solving it. How much radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm? Exception made of some clear cases -copernican vs tolomean astronomical vision- the issue ios tricky anyway. Regards Fernando
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.