Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 21:17:27 02/16/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2006 at 21:32:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Let me just summarize my critic for you, Sarah. If you want to present your >results in such a table and you create different colors and almost 90% of the >cases fall into a specific category (here greenish), then such a presentation >makes no sense. Because, ask yourself, what is the conclusion? And if everything >is almost the same, why then so many categories? Know what I mean? A graphical >picture should always clarify a context that is otherwise a bit difficult to >understand. But this here is so simple that you dont need all the details, a >short statement would have been better. Dear Rolf, For a person who touts science as the be all and end all (sometimes), you sure seem to know very little about it. At least, you fall into basic errors of thinking, which are entirely of your own making. No one tricked you, you posted the above yourself. I will explain your error very clearly, so that all will know & understand it for what it is. You, of course, I cannot guarantee will agree. In fact, I suspect you will be either silent or will object. Please, object--I expect no less from you and would like to hear your side of the story. One key aspect of sciencific method is 'experimentation'. Gathering data under certain conditions--both in an attempt to prove or disprove a hypothesis, or to simply see how the data behaves (after all, you have to gather it & analyze it to see if there are patterns), or to perform a 'repeatability' test to see if a hypothesis still holds in an independent set of trials. Steering of the data to bolster one's a priori conclusions is improper science; in fact, or perhaps may not be science at all, since such method is biased. Once data is gathered objectively, by controlled experimentation, it is fallacious to insist that the results should be clear to you, should explain something to you, should meet your expectations. How biased once again! If gathered experimental data is accurately bucketed into categories, in the spirit and interest of analysis or display of results, and all the buckets show green (more or less, except perhaps Fruit - Toga), who are you to object to the scientific gathwering of the data, and the accurate display of that data in pairwise fashion, program vs program, for scientific comparison purposes? An experiment is not invalid, does not become invalid, solely because the reviewer does not like what he sees. Surprise, surprise! Not all experiments produce the results desired by the reviewer. :) Anyway, your turn. Be silent. Or object if you please. Or surprise me and admit you spoke too quickly, and in an unscientific manner. If you are going to complete the proper education of CCC members, you will have to raise the bar and be more accurate in your postings. More attention to the means and meaning of 'science' and the 'scientific method' is recommended. P.S.--if you want to bucket experimental data in a different fashion, and display it differently, feel free to do so. Display of scientific data is not limited to a single presenter. Others may use the same data and display it differently. Such an exercise may or may not teach you anything, but will be a good learning experience nonetheless. :) You might look at things differently, after a while. :) Regards, --Steve
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.