Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 03:27:46 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 21:08:18, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On November 08, 2000 at 20:06:41, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 18:28:29, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Sorry for snipping all that sensible text, it was a joy to read. As far as I'm >>concerned most of the rhetoric essentially boils down to the above paragraph. If >>there's no determination of the characteristics of the old frame of reference >>and the new then categorization makes no sense whatsoever. We are only left with >>unsubstantiated opinions, allogations and lack of understanding as several >>recent threads have proved IMHO. >> >>The benefits of clear definitions are the identification of changes. Then you >>can start quibbling about the nature of these changes and if they are valid, ie. >>if they improve the areas they claim to improve or not. Another possibility >>would to identify the general framework, eg. can the changes be reached by >>applying new principles to the old framework? Do we have to abandon certain >>ideas that are no longer compatible with the parameters of the new approach? Do >>we have to start anew? These are the interesting questions IMO. >> >>According to the "new paradigm" supporters the difference is too large for >>natural "evolution" from old to new without abrupt change or introduction of the >>elusive knowledge "crane". However, no chess program in existance support that >>kind of conclusion. So I think that building a bridge with objective knowledge >>and information is better than creating a divide with arrogant, unsubstantiated >>opinions on both sides. >> >>The interesting part of understanding improvement must be to apply scrutiny and >>analysis to the various parts of the entire framework, whether it be the old or >>the new. This is pure speculation on my part as I'm not a programmer and >>fortunately I have no ambitions in that regard. The approach seem interesting to >>me, but maybe the art of pointing fingers at each other is the preferred >>approach by the programmers guild? >> >>Mogens. > >We have a complicated field because there are people who do research and we have >people who do commercial stuff. There are other fields where this is true, but >I don't think there are many quite like this one. Discussion of computer chess >in public is a multiplayer game of prisoner's dilemma, and there are those who >always defect. > >Political ideology is very important to Thorsten, and he plays out the struggle >between political ideologies with these mechanical robots. He sees one that >suits him politically and he gets behind it with extreme force because he >believes that its superiority proves the superiority of his political ideology. > >Or if not that, probably something equally strange sounding. > >But people are being led around by the nose because of this. With due respect >to Christophe, we have here a new version of a program, not proof that communism >is more humane than capitalism. It's a strong version of a strong program, and >it is possible that others will imitate certain aspects of it. But that doesn't >warrant the term "revolutionary", however good it would look in advertising >copy. I'm not commercial, so I'm not interested in advertising copy. But, whether there's a revolution or not should be discussed with reference to the theory of scientific revolutions, and not just by contradictory assertion. I posit that the IDEA is revolutionary because it turns old paradigm assumptions on their head. It analyses failures of the old paradigm (discussed elsewhere as anomolies), and seeks to use these anomolies to find a new way which fixes them. I posit the IDEA is revolutionary because it is, or has been, strongly opposed. >This is an evolution, Revolution. It fits the Kuhn theory, imo. > it's something for others to experiment with, and >nobody will have to rewrite their program to do it. True. Rewriting programs is not necessary. Rewriting part of the practitioners brain, is. To do it, you have to think different. The revolution is in your own head. Risky guesses instead of accuracy, seek chaos instead of seek quietness. Handle the chaos instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Chaos is good for you. Revolution in thought of programmer. Hence connected to politics (avoid, avoid, avoid). Hence connected to personality of programmer (avoid, avoid, avoid). QED. > >bruce
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.