Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 03:28:54 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 01:07:57, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 07, 2000 at 11:40:39, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Well, I commit all the time all kind of mistakes and sins, but this one, >>chessistic one, I think I do not. At least no on purpose and sin exist if it is >>commited on purpose. >>Respect Kuhn vision, I disagree with such extreme point of view. I agree with >>him and you that in the realm of Being many kinds of worlds can be constructed, >>but I still think that any of them or at least many of them stay and function >>over a common ground that even if we cannot grasp as such, nonetheless it exist. >>No matter what a member of a culture thinks about the usefulness of bow and >>arrows as ultimate weapon, it is less efective than a nuke. > > > > >Just replace amerindian's bows and arrows with nuclear bombs, leave them alone >for a while, then come back and ask them what they think about the efficiency of >this new tool. > >Oops... There is nobody left to answer. They had the choice to use the bombs to >hunt (and nuke themselves), or to die from starvation. > >Just a remark about the different ways to view things. :) > Quite so. To draw on Kuhn's ideas .... Fernando was doing 'normal science' - and was arguing on the more-is-better, bigger-is-better basis (nukes more effective than bows and arrows). Christophe feels the revolutionary space is growing, so he fills it a little more. Just drawing parallels. > > > Christophe > > > > > >> Different degres os >>science are behind both of them and one is certainly more powerful. No matter >>what you believe about the gods behind climatic conditions, a scientific vision >>knows better about that. In fact relativism supposes something absolute respect >>to which there are relatives things. We cannot grasp it as such, but it exist >>and produces an effect in the sense than some of the parcial visions are more >>fitted than others. If so, progress exist in the sense we get better and better >>understanding of the world and greater capacity to handle it. So there is >>objetivity after all. You can say there is not progress between Mozart music and >>Stravinksy music, OK, but both of them are artifacts without any connection with >>"reality". Values, of course, are relative in the same sense. I can even imagine >>certain progress in arts if we consider as a factor of it an ibcresing >>complexity. That, of course, does not involves nothing about the delight any >>form or art can give to us. In this I accept hegelian point of view about arts >>and his relationships. >>Fernando
This page took 0.01 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.