Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:46:16 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 07:02:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 06:47:56, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>Here in the debate between Uri and Sune the problem becomes very clear. People >>>>have a tendence to prove as true what they think to be true. But that proves >>>>nothing but weak education in science. >>> >>>Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. >> >>You felt being addressed here? > >In a way, my procedure is to figure out what is the truth, and then prove it. >It's kind of hard to do it the other way I think. > > >>>> It is possible to understand that the host has to >>>>open a wrong door but it is not clear from the question. >>> >>>"You pick a door-;say No. 1-;and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, >>>opens another door-;say No. 3-;which has a goat" >>> >>>None of us are native english speakers, so perhaps we can get a ruling from >>>someone else. >>>Does the above quote say if he opens a door or not? >> >>It's not a question of English but of logic. How could you ever conclude from 1 >>event on "all" events? It's trivial. Whether in Chinese or Marsian. > >Yes it is a question of logic. >This isn't 1 event, this is an implication: you choose door => host opens door. > >>>>If his strategy is >>>>always to open a door is not clear from the question and the only information >>>>that we know for sure is that he opened a door." >>> >>>No it says he "opens a door", not "opened" a door, so you know for sure that he >>>will do it always. >> >>You misunderstand me. He opens a door, ok. So we know by now that he opened 1 >>door. But we do not know what happens tomorrow. At least in logic. You miss >>completely the question Marilyn had to answer. And therefore I tried to explain >>it in my *Conclusion*. But it seems as if you prefered to neglect it. >>Nevertheless you appear and want to insist. That alone is strange. > >Yes I insist, see above. > >>> >>>>Uri does what every scientist must do, he tries to find the parts of data that >>>>could be accepted _without_ a doubt. Because all the rest might contain >>>>interesting data, but it can't be taken with certainty. >>>> >>>> >>>>- Sune on the other side has a tendence for authoritarian declarations, where >>>>the certainty is a question of imperative gesture but not of content: "I don't >>>>see anything unclear about the question at all, he opens a door for sure, and >>>>more than that, he opens a door with a goat behind it." >>> >>>And you my friend have the weakest argumentation I have ever seen in my life, >>>you never ever get to the point. When you finally get caught in you own web you >>>run away saying you really meant something else. >>> >>>To be precise and to the point is a crucial ability for the scientist, to ramble >>>on for 16 pages about nothing is the other end of the spectrum, if you know what >>>I mean. >> >>I see. You have a personal axe to grind. Go on then and have fun. :) > >Sorry if I don't giftwrap my insults, that is not my style. >Do you prefer a amateurish psycobable profile then? > >>>Then you start with you amateurish pseudo analysis of people, which is >>>off-topick, offensive, and very much an escape to avoid the real debate, which >>>you have lost so long ago but are not man enough to admit. >> >> >>As personal attacks are not allowed in CCC ... But that doesn't matter for you. > >Actually it does, but since I didn't start it.... Where did I then start it? And to you in special? I didn't do it. If however I did in your perception I want to apologize. I know that my English is weak. So misunderstandings might be forced. Although - - I met the same mess in German groups. Look, in CSS forum (Computerschach&Spiele) I was attacked for writing a too extreme diplomatic (sic!) style. Now guess who insulted me with such a nonsense. Hint: It was a programmer! A couple of weeks later the CSS staff threw me out because allegedly I caused too much uproar (sic!). You see, if people are bad you can't make it right for them. The same here in CCC. Usually I mention 'science' and I write 'a scientist does this or that' -- and whoopie certain people throw their artillery on such wordings and try to get me - as if I had written that I were the World's greatest scientist with 5 Nobel Prizes in my pockets. Exactly for chess players errors and blunders are a normal event and everybody would agree that it's better to make no errors at all, but it's too difficult for most of us. Now in special here I see two important points: °°° people try to defame those who point at apparent mistakes in computer chess °°° people seem to pretend that because errors are odd, they can't happen This is a strange perception of the real world we're living in. With this thread I tried to explain why it is sometimes so difficult not to make errors and why it should be better to admit that something could not be understood than insisting on the basis of false understanding. Logic is not gambling. Rolf Tueschen > >>>If you have any good objective arguments I will listen, but please put a sock in >>>that mumbojumbo crap. >> >> >>Ok, you made clear that you think that I'm wrong and at the same time _you_ >>proved that you have no clue of logic. So - make your own conclusions. But you >>must not become angry. Science is not a good base for personal insults. We're >>not here to prove who is dumb and who is not. The same BTW as it makes no sense >>to insult people with psychiatric layman's diagnoses. > >I agree, let us be objective (if we can!). > >>[Soon you can read a chapter about this problem _also_ in computer chess on my >>webpage - - http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/rolftueschenmosaik.html] >> >>So I thank you for giving the slight correction to my 'Moral' below. People can >>offend others also in CCC. Point taken, thank you. > >Ouch! > >-S.
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.