Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:31:04 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
Hi: Part of the debate has just a sintactic reason: the meaning of paradigm. If it is conceived as a sudden jump, then, of course, you will see rareley anywhere such a thing. I am remembering right now the steps that were behind the Theory of Evolutions by Darwin. People does not know this very often, but in fact Darwin was preceded in most of his theory at least in a hundred year. Even his great grand-father outlined it almost to the point. There were others. Darwin just added a crucial element: empirical and detailed verification and reasonning. He mixed a lot of things and produced a most complete set of ideas. So I would say that change of paradigms exist, but they proceed by steps and only the last one, the most perfect of all them, appears as a sudden and new thing because in his perfection and completion get the attention of the entire world of people concerned with the issue. Same with our issue. Paradigm change exist, but not from the blue, but as progressive acumulation of steps that, when reaching a clear-cut new point, appears as a definitively new thing. Is DJ this clear cut new point? Or Tiger? Or non yet? We must wait and see. fernando
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.