How does not playing equate to improvement?

[EdLee]

Hi lemmata,

What do you think?

Kheldragar-en_US.png (16.86 KiB) Viewed 12571 times

• Suppose we see a growth curve. With a break somewhere on it. To prove that whatever happens after the break is caused partially or entirely by the break,
  we need to show that without the break, it would not have happened. How to do this ? It may involve a lot of data, with a lot of very carefully designed control groups.
• Correlation and causality are two different things.
• If someone, like Abyssinica, plays 100 serious games, and gets good feedback from reviews of those games, we'd expect this to affect the growth curve;
• We're back to discussing how to improve, which is one of many perennial Go topics here and on KGS, etc.
  With an endless supply of threads and discussion. Education. Non-trivial.
• And of course, Cargo cult science.

I get the feeling that they're forgetting vaguely stated pseudo-knowledge about go, which can be a hindrance to true progress.

Which is an interesting hypothesis. And which, if we are to test it, would require a lot of data, a lot of work.
But yes, to agree with you, from direct first-hand observation on KGS, especially with kyu to mid-dan reviewers,
there is an infinite supply of bull****, I mean pseudo-knowledge, about Go.

[Abyssinica]

In the end, does anyone truly have accurate knowledge about the game?

[lemmata]

Hi lemmata,

What do you think?

Kheldragar-en_US.png

• Suppose we see a growth curve. With a break somewhere on it. To prove that whatever happens after the break is caused partially or entirely by the break,
  we need to show that without the break, it would not have happened. How to do this ? It may involve a lot of data, with a lot of very carefully designed control groups.
• Correlation and causality are two different things.
• If someone, like Abyssinica, plays 100 serious games, and gets good feedback from reviews of those games, we'd expect this to affect the growth curve;
• We're back to discussing how to improve, which is one of many perennial Go topics here and on KGS, etc.
  With an endless supply of threads and discussion. Education. Non-trivial.
• And of course, Cargo cult science.

I get the feeling that they're forgetting vaguely stated pseudo-knowledge about go, which can be a hindrance to true progress.

Which is an interesting hypothesis. And which, if we are to test it, would require a lot of data, a lot of work.
But yes, to agree with you, from direct first-hand observation on KGS, especially with kyu to mid-dan reviewers,
there is an infinite supply of bull****, I mean pseudo-knowledge, about Go.

I agree with you on the principles of sound arguments and scientific inquiry. I was throwing out a lazy alternate theory, something that might be described as entertaining cocktail party conversation fodder, which I happen to believe at the moment because I have no stake in its truth/untruth.

By the way, thanks for that link. That was thoroughly entertaining. I bookmarked it and might make my students read it along with the Apology of Socrates next term.

[EdLee]

read it along with the Apology of Socrates next term.

Hi lemmata, that's nice. Which level (grad school, undergrad, etc.) do you teach ? Is it philosophy ?
Dr. Richard Feynman is one of my all-time favorites.

[lemmata]

Which level (grad school, undergrad, etc.) do you teach?

It's a college course. I'll PM you the brief details since they are irrelevant to the thread.