Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 18:18:17 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
I can tell you honestly that if I had to go back to my dissertation and replicate my results, I doubt that I could do it. Just too much water under the bridge. My memory is far to foggy to go back to all that data and all those print outs, put everything back together again, and justify this or that decision. My experience as a psychological researcher is that a lot of arbitrary decisions are made on the way to some single statistic that presumably has meaning. And then someone on your committee comes along and wants this or that changed, and you do it because you need to show respect for senior professors, although you might not agree at all. Every dissertation is the product of compromise between a student and his committee. Likewise, most published articles are the product of compromise between an author and the referees. The process of science often introduces distortions that the author never intended, including logical inconsistencies between one section of a document and another. And that's just life. Roger On September 03, 2002 at 20:48:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 20:20:48, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>Wow, this comment is in exceptionally bad taste. You don't question the >>scientific integrity of a researcher lightly, particularly in a public forum. > >I was responding to this post from Robert: > >---quote---- > >[snip]... But that >doesn't mean things were fabricated. > >But if you want to believe so, feel free. It doesn't change a thing either >way... > >------------ > >I don't know what exactly happend with the results. It seems from this thread >that even Robert doesn't know. Just because of this, no matter how they were >produced, I think they are questionable. > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.