Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 15:28:29 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 11:02:54, Joe Besogn wrote: > > >Kuhn concluded early that the conventional textbooks on the history of science >were simply wrong, not so much about facts as about processes and sequences. No >science primarily develops in steady, small increments - tiny accruals of fact. >Science develops in revolutionary spasms, with periods of consolidation between. >Both before and after revolutionary changes, any given discipline has >overarching theories, some models, favorite metaphors, systems of symbolization. >These ways of thinking - Kuhn called them together paradigms - not only define >the discipline but can be used to explain most of the phenomena in which the >discipline is interested, as did Ptolemaic astronomy or the phlogiston theory. > >Most "normal science" is not engaged in radical innovations, lonely and heroic >explorations of the unknown. Most normal scientists work with the puzzles for >which the contemporary paradigm is applicable. Those puzzles for which the >paradigm does not apply are typically ignored or even denied to exist. But >sometimes these anomalies of explanation cannot be denied, either for pressing >general reasons (in which case several people are apt to create a new paradigm >almost simultaneously) or because some atypical scientist finds the climate >right for the acceptance of his ideas. Then a new paradigm is created, a new >system of thought, which explains more phenomena more parsimoniously and >elegantly. Often, Kuhn tells us, there ensues a battle between the >conservatives, the adherents to the old paradigm, and devotees of the new ways >of thinking. When one side or the other wins, they can return to their more >peaceful puzzle laboratories. > >A new paradigm amounts to seeing the theoretical structure of a scientific >discipline in some new and useful way. The effect, if innovation takes hold, is >revolutionary. If the revolution is a large one, the effector or effectors are >often dubbed geniuses, and previous geniuses become denigrated. One of the things that Kuhn was interested in was the fact that in an open activity like science, such things *shouldn't* happen. He was commenting on a sort of "perversity" (my term; it's a long time since I read SSR) which would lead (eg) referees in journals to reject theories even though the proposer was obliged to provide all the information required for the referees to repeat the relevant work and see for themselves. I think there's a difference when you try to apply this to computer chess. You seem to be suggesting that two authors (you and Christophe Theron, although in some of what you have written on this subject you seem to be taking credit for Christophe's work as well as your own - an impression you may wish to correct) are proposing a new paradigm and the establishment is fighting a backs-to-the- wall battle to reject it. But both you and Christophe are *commercial* authors and neither of you are saying anything about what you do in your programs (a perfectly reasonable decision in my view). So the situation is different from that which Kuhn was describing, because in science full disclosure of methods and results is required before any form of acceptance is achieved. Furthermore, in other discussions on the board, you have denigrated the "old paradigm" people (ie everyone except you, Christophe and Thorsten :-) on a number of grounds. I would take issue with two: (a) They rejected the *usefulness* of the "new paradigm" when CS-Tal first came out on the basis that its results weren't brilliant. Using Kuhn as an analogy, you'd have to say that the *only* grounds on which one could assess CS-Tal was its external behaviour because the content of your "theory" isn't open and available for debate. At the time, I seem to remember you and Thorsten constructing an argument that one should consider a program's "style" of play as well as its win/loss/draw performance. In my opinion, this is a sensible basis on which to assess a chess program. Indeed in a world where all commercial programs effortlessly slaughter their purchasers it seems as good a basis as any other. However, you can't blame anyone for not choosing the same criteria to assess a program as you and Thorsten choose. (b) They reject the *existence* of the "new paradigm". Again, turning to your Kuhn analogy, without an open expression of what the new techniques are based on, it is hard to see the "perversity" which Kuhn identified in the world of science. Remember that Kuhn was talking about people who had to explain *exactly* how they had achieved their results in a form that allowed any sceptic to repeat their work for themselves. And *still* the "revolutionaries" had trouble having their ideas accepted. This isn't the same situation you are in at all. Specifically, how can one tell if Gambit Tiger is part of your "new paradigm" or a development of the "old paradigm"? (Please note that I'm not arguing on either side here; I've seen CS-Tal in action, but not yet Gambit Tiger). Apart from Gambit Tiger being exceptionally strong, how does one distinguish it from Shredder, Fritz, Nimzo, Chess Tiger 13 etc? To summarise: if you want to place yourself in the august company of Kuhn's scientific revolutionaries you first have to define what your "new paradigm" is. You could start by distinguishing clearly between the characteristics of an old-paradigm program and a new-paradigm program. Perhaps, en passant you could discuss whether an old-paradigm program can be converted to a new- paradigm program, or whether it really needs a new start from the ground up. I'm not asking you to share any secrets here. if it's not possible to express it without giving too much away, so be it - but you could stop using Kuhn's views to insult people. Andrew
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.