Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:36:21 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 18:03:12, Bob Durrett wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 14:50:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 15, 2003 at 11:09:43, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2003 at 10:14:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>Sorry, but this is rather insulting to Bob if you put Vincent on his level. >>>>Unfortunately you cloud the the whole question. In this case it's solely about >>>>science and logic. Now you judge that they both violate the basics. Does science >>>>and also logic have no meaning to you, no special value? I can't see where you >>>>discovered the "weak" point in Bob here. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>Did science and logic produce a chess engine? >>> >>>Bob D. >> >>Bob the Second, what would you think "what" did it? Just human "will"? Methinks >>you are confusing it with the question if someone should have studied computer >>sciences to be able to program a World Champion. That of course is nonsense. I >>think that Frans is no academic and neither Richard was. But that doesn't >>matter. The basics of computer chess have been found by academics. And not too >>low estimated academics. Another question is if you could well use logic and a >>technique that was created by academics, even if you were no academic. Well, >>also this question is moote. Of course you can. But - and that is a single >>caveat: if you talk like V., and when it's wrong, you might accept that some >>expert gives you a correction. What is wrong with that? >> >>Kind regards, >>Rolf Tueschen > >Well, I enjoy the fruits of the labors of others. Things like electricity and >chess engines, for example. But my gut feel is that it is going too far to >start worshiping science and logic. As far as logic is concerned, "logical >conclusions" are only as good as the unproven assumptions and the validity of >the "logical" steps. Many a "logical argument" has been shot down on this >basis. This is not to suggest that your logical arguments are flawed, however. >Nothing personal. It's just a general observation. > >: ) > >Bob D. > >Bob D. Your gut feeling is misleading you. We had a lot of debates about the value of science in CTF and it's clear that you can find religious beliefs in science as well. But that is not the point here. You say you like the products of science. But you remain sceptic towards science. Fine. But why rejecting basic truths by one of the science experts here? Expert for exactly the field where the so beloved engines were created. This doesn't make sense. As to the logical context you described, you are right, but where do you see such a violation in computer chess, meaning the points we were discussing here, Vincent against Bob? Please read the other message where I give two examples. Please show exactly where you see just little technical errors and NOT huge violations in logic. Let me state that I see a huge contradiction in your own presentation. Here you make the point of HUGE logical fallacies in science, that are also dangerous. While in the Vincent question you want to say that it's all about little technical errors. - The truth is that Vincent violates ver basic and highly important science and logic laws. - So you have an interesting technique of discussion. Let me call it the war on two frontiers. <g> Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen
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.