Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 08:52:03 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
Sorry to scare your Georg. Whenever anyone is accussed of anything, there is always something called "Due Process." Presumably, some methodology is at work in Due Process to ensure that the facts are eventually uncovered. Bad taste doesn't have a place in Due Process, in my opinion. We have Due Process because because people sometimes jump the gun, because they make accusations without gathering all the "facts," because the "facts" sometimes turn out to be wrong, because they may have access to incomplete information which leads to the wrong conclusion, despite their good intentions. And we also have Due Process because people's reputations are damaged by such accusations, EVEN WHERE NO WRONG DOING HAS OCCURRED. So I don't consider it ethical to co-opt this forum and fight it out, and ethics is exactly what we are talking about here. You see, it is one thing to say that someone made a mistake, it is one thing to say that they got their facts jumbled, it is one thing to say even that someone is just an idiot. But charges of fraud are quite different in nature, because they require knowledge about intentionality. Fraud goes quite far beyond whether some report was wrong. Fraud is almost impossible to prove, so Vincent has set himself an incredibly high hurdle to jump. I'm willing to bet that when the dust settles, it will settle on Vincent. Roger Roger >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 > > > >On September 04, 2002 at 01:34:18, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>Sorry Vincent, but this whole affair was presented in remarkable bad taste. In >>my mind you've only damaged your own character and reputation: I find it odd >>that someone who purports to have such extreme sensitivity to the truth could >>have such insensitivity in regard to its presentation, and that certainly causes >>me to doubt the sincerity of your motives. >> >>Roger >> >> >> >>On September 03, 2002 at 23:52:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 21:18:17, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>sorry, but chess is an exact science. You have a speedup of 1.9 or you don't >>>have a speedup of 1.9. It is very easy to measure. It is very easy to >>>cheat by modifying it to 2.0 too. >>> >>>If it is modified, then sometimes statistical analysis can show that >>>very clearly. >>> >>>In this case it does. >>> >>>Don't comapre with something that is not exact science please. >>> >>>You have a 2.0 speedup or you don't have a 2.0 speedup. hardware doesn't >>>matter. Lies matter here. In this case modified search times to cover up >>>a problem of 1-8 processors versus 16 processors. >>> >>>I am not here to tell you about the computer it ran on. I am here to >>>show that there is a problem with the results written down. >>> >>>You can discuss results because: "such a good speedup can't happen", >>>or "such a bad speedup is unexaplainable". >>> >>>But we can't discuss about this. It's a clear case of fraud. Nothing else. >>> >>> >>>>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 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.