Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:06:00 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2000 at 04:03:39, Joe Besogn wrote: >On November 08, 2000 at 18:28:29, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>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) > >You are mistaken. I have said that as far as I know Christophe was helped only >by introduced language, and that only after he'ld done his development. > >>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 > >You are mistaken. > >>and neither of you are saying anything about what you do in your programs > >You are mistaken. > >(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. > >Here you have to make do with what you've got. > >There is a full and complete encapsulation of the old paradigm in source and >object code form. Crafty. > >For programs that may or may not be new paradigm it is necessary to interpret by >reading the programmers thoughts and studying the output of the program. Some >programs give more output than others. CSTal, for example, gives all ply one >scores, broken in several components, for all moves in any position. Simply by >inserting test positions, a researcher could unravel the king attack evaluation >function or any other, with ease. Easier than looking at the source. > > >> >>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. > >CSTal, AFAIK, and as stated above, puts out more than sufficient data for its >operation to be unravelled. AFAIK the operation of that program was discussed in >major detail. However, the point remains, that the proponents of that program >were on the planet Zarg, and the learned individuals of computer chess failed to >understand what they were talking about most of the time. > >To the extent that a common statement was that "they never contributed anything >constructive" kept coming from those who never even showed their program >executable to anybody, let alone described any operations. > > >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. > >I stressed Kuhn's case that there is no independent third party who can >adjudicate. All one side can do is state its case. The other side will state its >case. End. No dialog possible. Blame doesn't come into it. > >> >>(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, > >Contradiction: the techniques are more than open. Some people don't look or >listen. Short of giving away the source, what are you suggesting? That only >programmers with open source are able to discuss? Be a detective, work it out, >the information is there. > > > 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. > >Let's all shut-up then and leave it to the 'real' scientists? You're playing the >old, tired, 'real scientists' vs the 'commercials' game. No I'm not. If you want to say, "I've invented a new paradigm but no-one wants to listen to me", that's fine by me. What I object to is your saying, "I've invented a new paradigm and no-one wants to listen to me and this is exactly what Kuhn was describing in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'". This isn't accurate, in my opinion. > >Leave me out, please, I'm not a 'commercial'. > Let's be clear here. You are Chris Whittington, aren't you? What I meant was that as the author of CS-Tal, you were a commercial programmer who, for very good reasons, was not about to explain in detail what his program did to produce its unique style of play. Surely we're not going to argue about that? > 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? > >Play it, look at its output, listen to the language that the programmer uses. >Use your human intuition. > >> >>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. > >Done already, over and over. You can't have been reading. > > > You could start by distinguishing clearly between the characteristics >>of an old-paradigm program and a new-paradigm program. > >Done already, over and over. > > > 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. > >Done already. > >>I'm not asking you to share any secrets here. > >They're already shared. You didn't see. > Well, thank you for the summary in your other response. > 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. >> > >Why insulted? I already said there is no independant arbiter possible to choose >between paradigms. I can only state my preference, I can't assert one better >than the other, or one set of supporters better than the other. It is not for me >to decide for you. > >> Andrew
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.