Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:44:29 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 19:24:54, Omid David wrote: >On October 03, 2002 at 15:15:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > > >A researcher is expected to keep track of his experiments, or be able to >reproduce them. In computer chess, the latter usually isn't possible, since the >very frequent engine updates and the difference between different versions of >the engine (not mentioning hardware upgrades) doesn't allow an exact >reproduction of the original experiments. > >So in computer chess it's very important for a researcher to save his log files, >since they are his only proof of his results' accuracy. The data stored in >computers can be lost due to many reasons, so backups are necessary to protect >this valuable data (I personally store hundreds of thousands of log files on a >daily basis). But even then, there are cases where the data is lost and the >backup is unreadable (as was the case in Bob's DTS article). > >Omid. Ok, but here I wanted to compare Schön case to our discussion about the other case. 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.