Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:53:55 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 04:22:55, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >Hi Roger, > >I am not taking side here but your post scares me a bit. > >Shouldnt we first look at content and then at presentation ? Vincents "bad >taste" does not change facts at all. >Nor do his motives. > >I can simply not understand nor follow the argumentation " Dr.Hyatt is a great >guy and therefore we may not critisize errors/bad science/carelesness/fraud >[select one] in his papers. > > >Kind regards, > >Georg v. Zimmermann > Excuse me. This is not sound! Although I don't know your age or education, I know that you don't get the point here. NB that if you are a real scientist then it's even worse. You are right and wrong. Of course content goes always over presentation. But then what is content here? NB that it's a difference if you write in internet NGs or if you publish articles (in ICCA Journal) or if you write your dissertation. I can't help but Vincent is talking to the person reduced to the first and second aspects. Of course he might have found certain errors in the presentation of the article. I found many occasions to discuss with Bob namely the OT topics. But Bob is still the one who was able to do some sound science, aspect three. NB that if that would not have been the case I would have never insisted so much in the OT topics. Thinking processes do interest me as such. How can you state the trivial when Vincent himself, unneccessarily, confused good observations with final proofs? Wouldn't you say that this is always evil? So, the verdict "lying, mass fraud, fakes" is no presentation, it's premature judgement! You do Vincent no good favor if you confuse things even more. Point is that Vincent in his situation has many difficulties to solve and explain and - with priority - understand. In my eyes he wrote a good report, IF he had left out the personal insults. Even his interpretations are not sound and sufficiently researched. Psychologically he's not to blame. He's in a mess and not a scientist (yet) himself. So, by force, he comes to false conclusions out of good observations! If he only had asked real scientists with enough experience in CC, because they would have helped him to avoid the premature stuff incl. insults. It'sso bad. If all what Vincent reported would be a) true and b) let only place for a single conclusion, then, but only then, Vincent's own conclusions would be _unneccessary_. BTW that is how science works in daily routine. There is no need to become aggressive if your points speak for yourself. But the other way round is also true. Internet is another medium of course. Vincent had certain doubts and open questions and decided to gamble. But he overlooked certain possibilities (of explanation). Personally I wished that Vincent might understand his faults, he's smart enough, and that he will be remembered here for his motivation and audacity and not for his mistakes as a beginner in science. I also wished that Bob would still cooperate. BTW I know that he will because his heart will always overcome his head. Fortunately. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 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.