Author: martin fierz
Date: 20:28:26 09/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 22:31:34, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 20:46:40, martin fierz wrote: > >>sure, i've published a few papers on physics. feel free to read them. if you >>find an error in my publications, i will be happy to acknowledge that here. >>science is about finding the truth, not about ego. this is not about a personal >>attack on bob. if the emperor is not wearing any clothes, you have to say it, >>and if you *are* the emperor and somebody tells you that you're not wearing >>clothes, you have to admit it... > >The emperor example isn't a good one IMO. The emperor just sentences someone to >death for any old reason (no reason also works equally well). huh? this is not about death sentences. it's about the story of the emperor's new clothes, which you should know... that story is about people having far too much respect of authorities, which is always a bad sign for a society... but i guess i digress :-) >Besides, you said >previously that it didn't matter whether or not the numbers were 100% accurate. >If that's the case, Vincent is way out of line calling Bob a fraud. yes and no. if bob were claiming that these numbers were actually measured numbers, i would call him a fraud too. and the paper says these are actually measured numbers. it just turns out that bob had to satisfy a request of a reviewer after writing the paper (i know the feeling...), and supply data which is in fact irrelevant to the conclusions of his paper, and was a bit sloppy about this. so there is an explanation for the whole business, and bob is not a fraud, which certainly is no surprise :-) >If Vincent >would have privately emailed Bob and let him know his numbers were not correct, >fine. Unless he had some axe to grind with Bob, I don't see any reason to even >post that information publicly, if, as you say, it doesn't matter. of course. but we all know vincent and his style. that he didnt do as you suggest is also no surprise... once the whole debate went public, i think it is absolutely legitimate to ask bob about his numbers which are obviously not correct. the person who has most to gain of this debate is bob, because he explained the funny numbers in his paper in a (to me) very convincing manner. scientific fraud is more common than you might think. academia works on a "up or out" basis, and there are few positions on the top. academia also works by "publish or perish", where commitee members who decide about the up-or-out business often do little more but count the number of publications of an applicant. these are strong incentives to either fabricate or massage data. it's all been done... aloha martin
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.