Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
40 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Buddha lite, June 4, 2004
Buddhist math? C'mon.
First, let me say that fuzzy logic and fuzzy arithmetic are great tools. They're valued parts of the 'soft logic' kit that includes probability, interval arithmetic, Bayesian and Markov networks, and lots of other good stuff. Fuzziness involves many of the formal techniques used in probability and elsewhere, and gives a useful, alternative view of the systems it addresses.
The basic fuzzy idea is that most descriptions involve shades of gray, that few systems really match the black/white, on/off, either/or duality of standard formal logic. That's fine, I can get along with that quite well.
My problem, though, is that Kosko presents the fuzzy world-view vs. the traditional or "scientific" in exactly the black and white terms that he rejects. He also argues that fuzziness describes the world more effectively than "scientific" terms, that the rules of arithmetic, probability, and calculus are just games. They are played for their internal consistency, not because differentiation or factorials occur in nature.
That's true, and as a heavy math user I know enough to distinguish my models from reality. Two facts remain, though. First, the models very often do describe reality in ways that can be checked easily enough: the bridge doesn't fall down and the TV receives its signal. Both happen because the bad old exact arithmetic has some kind of correspondence (no, I don't know what) to the real world, giving real ability to predict real results. Second, fuzzy logic and fuzzy arithmetic are themselves mathematical formalisms, games like all the others. Once you get past the gee-whiz stage, there is mathematical content as rigorous as in any other field of study. It's not either/or, it's very often a different way to interpret the same self-consistent games people have played for years. It adds interesting rules to the game.
The great thing is that you really can use the new interpretations and tools along with the old ones. Fuzziness doesn't demolish the old structures, it bolsters them and adds capacity.
And you can get all these benefits without shrink-wrapped, bite-sized pieces of Eastern philosophy.
//wiredweird
|
|
|
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
New Perspective on Logic and Science, June 14, 2000
Kosko struggles to articulate the upcoming paradigm shift from Aristotelian logic to multivalent Fuzzy Logic in the world of commercial technology. He does a good job of explaining the concepts behind the "new" field of fuzzy thinking, but has a hard time expressing the mathematics of it. To give him credit, though, he had to write a book understandable by the lay, and therefore couldn't get too in depth with his equations. But if you have any background in calculus, you'll have no trouble learning from the footnotes.Aside from the introduction to fuzzy logic, Kosko dips into his personal life to talk about his contributions to the field. I found his digressions extremely interesting and his views enlightening. It's important to take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt, however (he likes to wax philosophical perhaps more than is appropriate), but he is an amiable character nonetheless. Overall, this is a good read. It's informative not only scientifically, but philosophically as well. Kosko's style is engaging, although too heroic in some passages, and thorough. Because of its controversial nature, some readers may find it offensive. But if you don't mind entertaining alternative opinions and don't mind suspending tendencies for dismissing foreign ideas (which a lot of the people who gave this book bad reviews couldn't apparently handle), you'll enjoy this book.
|
|
|
22 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
surprisingly bad, September 5, 1999
By A Customer
Well, I got about 1/2 way through the book and then gave up - in disgust. This is one of the worst popular science books I have come across, excluding obvious whacko books such as by the likes of Velikovsky.First of all, I want to say that I have no doubt that fuzzy logic is a very useful branch of maths with important applications to engineering etc and I have no doubt that Kosko has made important additions to the subject through his research. The serious objection I have is the claim that fuzzy logic is somehow breaking ties with Aristotelian logic. It is not. At the center of fuzzy logic is the concept of a fuzzy set. Instead of an element having {0,1} membership - either you're in the set or you're not - the rules of the game are that you can have degrees of membership lying in the real line segment [0,1]. Simple concept. Now develop a theory based on this... If you read any mathematical text on fuzzy set theory you will see definitions, theorems and proofs just as in any other branch of maths. Until a hole is found in a proof of a conjecture it is a theorem ie 100% true. If a conjecture is discredited by a counter-example or proof by contradiction (techniques that are established in all branches of mathematics) then until a hole is found the conjecture is 100% false. The point is that any well-formed conjecture in any axiomatic mathematical system is either true or false although finding the answer can be extremely difficult (eg the 4-colour problem - solved using a computer - or the Goldbach conjecture - unsolved to this day). This is the same for theorems about fuzzy sets. The object (a fuzzy set) may be more exotic, but the principles of reasoning (eg modus ponens) for asserting truths about these objects has not changed from the times of Aristotle. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of people without a comprehensive and advanced background in maths will regard fuzzy logic with a sense of awe and mystery as if fuzzy logic somehow represents a distinct paradigm shift. Remember folks, fuzzy logic is just another branch of maths just like its trendy cousin chaos theory and just like considerably more obscure branches of maths such as K-theory, universal algebra and differential geometry which are likely to receive blank stares at dinner parties. Well, as to the other problems with this book... I suspect that for all the travels to Japan that Kosko has done his grasp of Eastern thought is at best tentative and naive... I'm really dubious about his connections between fuzzy sets and yin-yang concepts. And to cap it off, I found the book to be very repetitive - in the same vein as Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - so maybe if you liked that book you'll love Fuzzy Thinking. Finally a word about grey. Grey is one of my favourite colours (I'm serious!). Kosko goes on about grey a lot. And I mean an awful lot. I mean on the scale of "a lot-ness" he probably gets about 9/10. Well, I, just like you, dear reader don't like to be pigeon-holed as a 100% "commie" or a 0% "tall" person. Seriously, it's kind of ridiculous how survey agencies like to put us into neat parcels such as "white" or "employed" or "happy" or whatever. Life is complex and full of shades of grey and I certainly applaud any attempt to acknowledge that fact.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Bart Kosko
by Masao Mukaidono
by Bart Kosko
