Chess-Opening Problem
There are a limited number of actually viable chess openings. Highly skilled chess players will almost always play the same opening moves, which have specific names. It could be said that starting the chess board from its initial position is a waste of time. The players could just as easily name the opening they will be playing and start from that position.
Many conversations in our public discourse are similar. There are often two sides with known positions and arguments. Discussions get bogged down by rehashing well worn intellectual paths without making any sort of progress.
A possible solution may be to acknowledge all the common arguments and proceed with the assumption everyone is aware of the basics.
To those exposed to my view that fundamental physical theory is in a 50 year stagnation, may I recommend this counter argument thread put forward by @nu_phases? This is what constructive academic debate & critique looks like, advancing our understanding of the chasm of thought.
I am trying an experiment.
Every day in December, I will post 1 result from the past 40 years (ie 1983-present) that fundamentally changed my corner of (fundamental) physics
Here are my rules
- Nothing already earning a Nobel prize
- Not a ranking, just my preferences
To those interested in these topics, I also recommend following @martinmbauer and @nu_phases. Both accounts are run by people trying to do real physics from what I have read of their work. I may disagree with them at times, but I’m open to their arguments changing my perspective.
And if you’re curious as to what the effect is on me, I’d say that these moves are still part of the well worn chess opening phase of the debate I’d be eager to skip.
So far, I’m saying “X is a disaster.” and Dan says “X’ is fine.” You can guess the next 2-3 moves from that.
Common Arguments that Never Get Resolved[edit]
See Also[edit]
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.