"Ron Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Christian Stapfer wrote: >> "Ron Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>Christian Stapfer wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This discussion begins to sound like the recurring >>>>arguments one hears between theoretical and >>>>experimental physicists. Experimentalists tend >>>>to overrate the importance of experimental data >>>>(setting up a useful experiment, how to interpret >>>>the experimental data one then gathers, and whether >>>>one stands any chance of detecting systematic errors >>>>of measurement, all depend on having a good *theory* >>>>in the first place). Theoreticians, on the other hand, >>>>tend to overrate the importance of the coherence of >>>>theories. In truth, *both* are needed: good theories >>>>*and* carefully collected experimental data. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Christian >>> >>>An interesting parallel can be made concerning management of production >>>vs >>>management of creativity. >>> >>>In general, production needs checks and feedback to insure quality, but >>>will often come to a stand still if incomplete resources are available. >>> >>>Where as creativity needs checks to insure production, but in many cases >>>can still be productive even with incomplete or questionable resources. >>>The quality may very quite a bit in both directions, but in creative >>>tasks, that is to be expected. >>> >>>In many ways programmers are a mixture of these two. I think I and >>>Steven >>>use a style that is closer to the creative approach. I get the feeling >>>your background may be closer to the production style. >> >> >> This diagnosis reminds me of C.G. Jung, the psychologist, >> who, after having introduced the concepts of extra- and >> introversion, came to the conclusion that Freud was >> an extravert whereas Adler an introvert. The point is >> that he got it exactly wrong... >> >> As to the value of complexity theory for creativity >> in programming (even though you seem to believe that >> a theoretical bent of mind can only serve to stifle >> creativity), the story of the discovery of an efficient >> string searching algorithm by D.E.Knuth provides an >> interesting case in point. Knuth based himself on >> seemingly quite "uncreatively theoretical work" (from >> *your* point of view) that gave a *better* value for >> the computational complexity of string searching >> than any of the then known algorithms could provide. >> >> Regards, >> Christian > > >> (even though you seem to believe that >>> a theoretical bent of mind can only serve to stifle >>> creativity) > > No, that is not at all what I believe. What I believe is, "The insistence > of strict conditions can limit creative outcomes."
That's agreed. But going off *blindly*experimenting* without trying to relate the outcome of that experimenting back to ones theoretical grasp of the work one is doing is *not* a good idea. Certainly not in the long run. In fact, muddling-trough and avoiding the question of suitable theoretical support for one's work is perhaps more typical of production environments. > The lack of those limits does not prevent one from using any resources > (including theoretical ones) if they are available. > > You seem to be rejecting experimental results in your views. Not at all. You must have mis-read (or simply not-read) my posts in this thread and are simply projecting wildly, as psychoanalysts would call it, that is all. > And the level of insistence you keep in that view, A view that I do not really have: you are really projecting indeed. > leads me to believe you favor a more productive environment > rather than a more creative one. You are mistaken. Although I have some "practical background" (originally working as a "self-taught" programmer - although, ironically, for a "development and research department"), I went on to study mathematics at the Federal Institute of Technology here in Switzerland. Do you want to say that having been trained as a mathematician makes one uncreative? - But it is true that mathematicians are socialized in such a way that they tend to take over rather high standards of precision and theoretical grounding of their work. > Both are good, and I may entirely wrong about you, .. you are at least *somewhat* wrong about me, that I am quite sure of... > as many people are capable of wearing different hats depending on the > situation. > > I think the gist of this thread may come down to... > > In cases where it is not clear on what direction to go because the choices > are similar enough to make the choosing difficult. It is almost always > better to just pick one and see what happens than to do nothing. As it appears, not even my most recent post has had *any* recognizable effect on your thoroughly misapprehending my position. Regards, Christian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
