The Creative Method
This is all kind of a paraphrasing of Richard Feynman’s chess example, but let’s see if I can put a spin on it.
A thought experiment on three possible worlds.
World One:
You see white has two bishops on dark squares. This seems impossible but you aren’t sure. You suspect something against the rules has happened. You look at the moves log and see that white’s light bishop had been captured. Sometime after that, a pawn was promoted to a bishop. This happened on a dark square. You conclude that two dark bishops is a possible situation. This is good science.
World Two:
You see white has two bishops on dark squares. This seems impossible but you aren’t sure. You suspect something against the rules has happened. You look at the moves log and see that white’s light bishop had made an illegal move and ended up on a dark square. You conclude that two dark bishops is an impossible situation. This is bad science.
World Three:
You see white has two bishops on dark squares. You conclude this is impossible and a cheat must have occurred. The end. This is not science.
I think you can replace the word “science” with “creative investigation” and it still works.
Jae-Ho
What I see mostly:
You’re watching a game from the side. You see two white bishops on black squares, which sort of seems wrong but you really have no idea. You decide it is fine.
This is negative science.
But then someone else who is watching gets mad about the board situation. “You can’t have two bishops on the same coloured square!” You like the way he’s getting worked up and decide to get worked up to, while walking away from the game. You keep on about it as you walk over to another game, and then forget all about what you were watching to begin with.
This is life.
Well, yeah. You can’t contemplate everything.
Also, everyone is a cat.
But some are dogged.