Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 13:32:03 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 06:13:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>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
---------------
Hi Rolf,
Let me clarify this as my wording was a little confusing! I believe if your
"obeying the rules" of this CCC forum, then i welcome opinions and disagreements
as long as you are staying with the topic that you are debating about(CC Forum
Topic Rules) and not drifting from the topic to personally attack the person you
are debating with. Yes, you do need expressions of opinion and from the results
of this you will have disagreements, but this is all good because this is how
one learns, but the key is to stay on the topic in question!
Regards,
Terry
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.