Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:13:01 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 01:12:35, Terry Ripple wrote: >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). 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. 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. >> >>Russell >-- >------------------- >Hi Russell, > >You hit the nail on the head! This information should not be posted publicly on >the CCC forum, and especially when they don't know if they are 100% sure of >their facts and besides i don't think this topic follows the rules this forum is >supposed to follow. I believe there is a better place to voice opinions and >disagreements! > >Regards, > Terry So is it not wanted to publish opinions and disagreements here in CCC? And everybody should be 100% sure before writing here? Excuse me but this is obviously a contradiction in itself. Let me explain to you in the pro-Bob coalition that Bob is not in need of such allies. Note please that if your proposal would become real all discussion where some residents are personally involved would be impossible in future. The debate among you is by no means a good mirror of what is really going on actually. It is also not the point that Vincent should have written Bob careful email with the data. BTW Vincent informed Bob several times as you could read here. No, the main point is this: a) could the critics of certain presentation in the DTS paper prove that Bob has made certain unforgivable mistakes? b) if yes, does this have anything to do with Bob's dissertation? c) if Vincent, as someone who was in good "cooperation" with Bob, suddenly had problems with the reproduction of certain results mentioned in the DTS paper, should he call Bob mass fraud, fake and lies? To a): those who want to decide should read carefully what Bob wrote about the creation of that paper; it's clear that the paper was _not_ product of a simgle and secret attempt by Bob alone To b): this gets a clear no, because criticism should argue against the dissertation itself then; Bob already mentioned that the two works have not much in common To c): as a neutral critic Vincent made several faults, but primarily as a "collegue" who wants to solve certain problems for himself he acted like a child in need of Ritalin. That he couldn't work with Bob's answers (explanations) on the earlier occasions and that he then thought that Bob had something to hide so to speak, this is Vincent's simple beginner's mistake. It's not that he went into public, because it's really an interesting problem, but that he thought that it were already proven (!), what he thought about Bob (see above), that is his major error. However this is a very instructive case for the readers. Because the magnitude of Vincent's error is in direct correlation of his big motivation and huge scientifical inexperience. Now if you begin to censor the good part in Vincent (his dedication) gets unnecessary shocks when on the other side his experience won't improve by magical interferences. But if we could discuss the complicated matter in detail we _all_ may profit. For the first time in history (CCC) we can understand the difficulties of research and publishing papers. And we can also learn that something could look odd and the person responsible still must not be a jerk in consequence. Sure, we could all this direct with censorship and authoritative interventions, but then we wouldn't be forced to think for ourselves who is right and who is wrong. In school or likewise university or other social institutions the young ones must have the right to make mistakes otherwise we would hinder them in making progress. Of course for teachers this isn't always fun, but then it's their burden to be both motivator and object of any spiritual attack. 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.