|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,13:53)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,13:09)|
|You really don't know much about me, do you?|
I honestly know a pompous blow-hard when I see one. Your deceptive methods of unfairly discrediting others is now a serious ethical concern for all whom you appointed yourself to (mis)represent.
Gary, are you hoping that I'll get all flustered and forget that you haven't ponied up the basis for your claims? I consider the source on stuff like you just said.
Let's get back to your incredible claims about evolutionary computation. Here's a reminder from up-thread a bit:
The claim was that Gary's work outperforms evolutionary computation approaches. This is a quantitative claim. I asked to see the benchmarks that Gary had indicated that he had already performed in order to come to this conclusion, benchmarks being a necessary prerequisite to even make the claim.
Gary's backtracking seems to be along the lines of saying that his program and evolutionary computation don't address the same concerns, in which case there is no basis to say that anything at all that isn't addressed to the same concern is like "baby-toys".
Gary could clear this up in a moment. If a technology doesn't address the concerns that his program does, then he can just say that it isn't relevant to what he is doing, and retract any false claims that he has made a comparison or even could make a relevant comparison.
On the other hand, if Gary wants to insist that there is some aspect on which his program and evolutionary computation is comparable, he needs to pony up more than an assertion that he has something superior. And it needs to involve more than an assertion that the compared technology isn't aimed at accomplishing Gary's personal mission. That leads to a conclusion that Gary is making a category error, not an informed assessment of capability.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker