Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 04:51:11 02/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 1999 at 23:07:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 13, 1999 at 23:02:11, Micheal Cummings wrote: >[snip] >>I just read your post Dann and I am wondering from what was written what you are >>actually trying to say in response to his post, I think you are a bit off the >>road. Maybe like I said I have missed something ,but what is wrong with what he >>is doing. >> >>Just because he stated that he is proving it, just means from the games he has >>played so far that he is actually proving his bet right. >You may well be right and I may have misinterpreted what he was trying to say. >It seemed (from my reading) that he had already assumed the outcome. For that >matter, I have no problem with someone favoring a particular program. I am sure >that we all do that in some sense. But I don't think if you lack scientific >objectivity during an experiment, then the outcome is less certain than if the >experimenters are completely objective. Sometimes, in a written media, we can >read way too much in between the lines. I may be guilty of that here. > >If I see a scientist say, "I am going to prove that Saccharin causes cancer." I >already doubt the value of his work to a much greater degree than if he said, "I >am going to try to find out if there is a link between Saccharin and cancer." > Hi Dan: I just return from my holydays in the beach and yes, the very first person here with which I will discuss is you :-) Maybe an astrological conjure? Well, the point is, dan, that your example of sicntific objkjetivity miss a vital point: the match between two programs -or any kind of competition zero-sum- cannot be comparted with a search about how much important a facto is in the causation links. No matter what you say about the ooutcome of a competition, one of another will win -of course I am discounting some elemental cheats like to give a program more time than the other- but of course in a scientific search your preferences really coudl so a difference as much so many variables are in stake, you can do a badly thought experiment, commit a logical fallacy, etc. As always truly yours and with metta as Dorfman say Fernando >If you are not objective, then the outcome is far less believable (to me).
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.