Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:15:18 10/03/02
In CTF I wrote about the scandal of the German scientist Schön. And now I have explained why the data loss of Schön is somewhat more relevant than the bad luck Bob Hyatt had with his disk crash. But since Vincent attacked Bob over a period of some days, I think it's worthwile to understand the differences of the two cases. Are my conclusions ok so far? Thanks for the interest. Here is the article from CTF, where Bob never appeared. QUOTE Subject: Re: Fossils and Bob's parallel computers are different to Schön's "loss" Posted by Rolf Tueschen (Profile) on October 03, 2002 at 15:03:34: In Reply to: Fossil remains *Bad excuses* posted by Matthew Hull on October 03, 2002 at 10:07:45: On October 03, 2002 at 10:07:45, Matthew Hull wrote: >On October 02, 2002 at 18:33:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 02, 2002 at 18:02:03, Axel Schumacher wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>>On October 02, 2002 at 09:01:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 02, 2002 at 08:53:36, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>A couple of months ago I wrote about the suspicion against the young German >>>>>>researcher Jan Hendrik Böhm. Now the commission found him guilty. It's a sad >>>>>>case of cheating in science. >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.srijith.net/trinetre/archives/000029.shtml >>>>>> >>>>>>Please make your own thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>>>Here is a better site: >>>>> >>>>>http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html >>>> >>>>In the German reviews I found one who at least left one door open in defense for >>>>the past alegged new Nobel Prize Laureate. >>>> >>>>I try to translate: >>>> >>>>The earlier "highly competent and sharp examination system" seems no longer to >>>>function in case of the Multi-Publications. The earlier in the USA very sharp >>>>system of referees for the invoiced works is sloppy now. Ingolf Ruge from >>>>Fraunhofer Institute thinks that Schön did not do it intentiously but became a >>>>victim of the multi-publishing, following the method, don't believe in >>>>statistics, you didn't cheat yourself. >>>> >>>>So far the quote. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>>Maybe he did it unintentionally. But is it then stupidity?? Difficult to >>>believe, since he is certainly a very clever guy. So, the main accusation was, >>>that he included the same graphs in different papers. "In April, a small group >>>of physicists noticed that graphs in three unrelated papers appeared identical >>>down to what should have been random noise.". Hmmm...strange..I'm a scientist >>>myself and I never ever send the same graphs to different journals. I know >>>exactly what is included in these papers. I really don't know how that can >>>happen. Of course this will show up very soon after publishing. If I'm >>>interested in a special topic I read usually all the papers from a group. Very >>>strange case indeed. >>>But maybe the biggest suspicion arose from the "lost" data: "According to the >>>report, most of the evidence of those original experiments has vanished. Schön's >>>transistors were all damaged or destroyed during the course of the original >>>experiments, and attempts to replicate them failed. Likewise, Schön had deleted >>>the raw data he had originally gathered in his experiments, because "his >>>computer lacked sufficient memory". >>>On the other hand. This can happen. I keep all my original data as far as I can, >>>but if I have to look trough some data, 5 or 6 years ago it will get difficult, >>>I'm sure I could not find all data. >>>Anyway; he admitted that he did a lot of things wrong. But he insists, that >>>everything was experimental data. We will probably never know. >>>Nevertheless, I think it is a difficult situation for well known scientist. >>>Everyone expects super-duper-great results from you. All the time. Maybe some >>>scientist just break down by that pressure and try everything to please the >>>public. I expect a quite high percentage of misconduct in science left >>>unnoticed. >>>Axel >> >>Axel, thanks, >> >>I want to add just this. In one of the quotes I read something he has allegedly >>said now. To make it clear: the main reason for his condemnation by the >>committee was not the point of the incredible number of equal diagrams with >>several different descriptions. The main reason was the impossibility to >>reproduce his results. Ok, and now what he said: (quote by heart) I had these >>results and from now on I will try, no matter how difficult it might be, to >>produce them again. - - >> >>Well for me that sounds strange. Simply because if he already had the results >>once before, he should not insinuate that it might be most difficult. He is >>either reacting on the committee, but that is then a contradiction to his own >>pretended past, or he is arguing against his own concsience and he has let slip >>a sort of unconscious confession. Because he won't believe that he must now wait >>forever for the reproduction if he had it done already before. >> >>What do you think about my logic? >> >>As for the diagrams I think that it's strange that 19 collegues of >>Schön,allproven innocent, should never have read these articles with the false >>diagrams? And if they had read, why they didn't discover something? >> >>A third point of his data security. >> >>It is almost not to believe that exactly the main data of his most important >>discovery should have been lost. I mean it's so basic, that some day someone >>might ask you to show them. So all this is a complete violation of all known >>necessary standards of science. It's a difference if some young student loses by >>chance the data and the first version of his paper - out of his car or such, or >>if a future alleged Nobel Prize Laureate loses his main data before others had >>the chance to reproduce anything. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > >Rolf, > >This kind of thing is very common. In fact, it is standard procedure in >radiometric fossil dating. But no one questions the results because those >results are "politically correct". > >But dont take my word for it. Check into it yourself. Find the published >papers and look. You will find that none of the results are re-producable or >verifiable. Everyone is expected to take their results on faith, and that's >exactly what everyone does. Professors, text books, documentaries, journals, >everyone just believes it. It is the biggest fraud in all of "science". > >The most important fossil remains are stored with such high security and >controlled access in steel vaults, that virtually no one is allowed to examine >them. Anyone wanting to check the work of the original discoverers and their >published results will not be permitted to do so. One may well ask, "what's the >big secret?" > >Regards, I don't think that is a good example. Because Schön had to create new experimental technology to get his "effects" while the method to calculate the age of such fossils is world-widely known and accepted IMO. So a specific result is not depending on the particular machines being used. But in the case of Schön look at this: He lost or destroyed (1) his raw data (2) the exact experimental design (3) the proof for his effects he pretended of having found That is a bit too much. Let's give that a little importance with a comparison to the Vincent attack on Bob Hyatt. Here are the differences and similarities. (1) Bob lost his raw data by a disk crash. (2) Bob is no one who wanted to prove by such results that he is a qualified new expert. Because he's already for decades an expert. (3) His experiments are by no means a secret or difficult to reproduce. Almost everybody with enough ressources could repeat it. Either with 2 processors or 4 or 8 etc. (4) Bob didn't find something really unexpected. Or would you say that the fact that more processors have a potential win in speed is something relatively unexpected? So, I would conclude that the data loss of Bob is nothing relevant in comparison to the loss of Schön. 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.