Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:44:21 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 06:53:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: We are not talking about me here but about Hyatt. How important is it that a professor of good standing is writing down the truth in an official article he writes? I mean if you, just released from prison or madhouse, to just give an example, write down some faked results and submit it to ICCA and they post it, then i can understand if it is not getting taken serious. Now how important is it that a government official with a professor in front of his name is writing down the truth? >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.