RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (384) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,08:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:57)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2012,00:30)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin]Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman
[URL=http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki/Heiserman @ _David_L.)
http://www.beam-wiki.org/wiki.......avid_L.[/URL]

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b
http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)!  Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Gary, whether or not you think that falsification is properly viewed as a demarcation criterion for science, Popper nailed the point that we can't determine that a scientific theory is true in an absolute sense. It is quite common for a theory to incorporate a number of verifiable basic statements, yet still be false in its predictions.

So far you've insisted that people critiquing your work prove it false, though you explicitly disclaim the applicability of falsifiability to it, and then insisted that they prove it true, with apparently no misgivings whatsoever that this confirms the critique about lack of substantiation from you.

For someone concerned about scientific credibility, this is not a good thing.

In my research, I don't have the same goals as you do. I have to reject the notion that I have developed no models and contributed nothing to scientific progress. You may not like my work, and you may reject my work as being applicable to your personal project, but that does not make it go away.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  11509 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (384) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]