Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:31:32 07/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2000 at 13:09:24, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Dann: >Generally speaking I agree with your statements, but maybe I would add that a >dosis of fussy logic or whatever the name you give to it should be neccesary in >this issue, as in fact it is neccesary even in hard sciences. In these you very >rarely get into a new idea of theory just following strictly the canon of >scientific method. Things are not that way. I do not know of any important >theory in chemics of physics that resulted from a kind of aristotelic sillogism >or mathematical demostration. This last comes in the end, long after the >intuitive idea has appeared in the mind of the reseacher. Einstein did not >discover relativity making numbers in a sheet of paper, but mixing in his mind >all kind of vague ideas, including Kant formulation about space and time. Only >after he had his flash of understanding he looked for a wway to put that in >maths. The same room for some fussyness you can get in the methods of proof. >Statistics is far to be an inequivocal system of demostration. It handles some >maths, but before the maths comes to the scene you must define concepts and the >kind of things to be measured and so you have room for getting all kind of >conclusions. I know it very well as much my professional training in sociology >dealt with a huge amount of statistic, the main math tool of that half-science. >In even the most precise formulation lurks some degree of vagueness and mistery; >in fact that is the ground for further progress. A creative scientist just catch >that misterious area to develop a more complete, exhaustive theory. >So, in this case of GM strenght, we are not going to solve the issue just the >day we gather lot of information for statistic analysis. At most we will be >nearer to solve it. Remember that, also, reality changes. Suppose programs gets >current GM today, but then tomorrow these GM climb to another higher level >because what they learn from computers...and nevertheless you will say programs >are GM because you already have your numbers. OK, all this is tricky, changing >and that's the reason is entertainning. Probably this last thing is the only one >for certain. You are right that many (maybe even most) beautiful and creative ideas do not come from a mathematical rigor or deriving equations. But knowing your new idea was correct did! ;-)
This page took 0 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.