NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,18:48) | ...
I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code. Other original models including grid and place cell navigational networks only helped make it a clear scientific victory. There is no other like it anywhere.
... |
What on earth makes you think this?
NO ONE other than yourself, the set of voices in your head, thinks you have done or are doing science in any sense of the term.
Submission of source code to a code-sharing site such as PSC does not count as 'publication' in any except the most liberally metaphorical or allegorical fashion.
There are no particular restrictions on submission to PSC. The stated goal of the site is to provide sample code in a (small) variety of languages. That you contributed something is entirely irrelevant to science and to the act of publication.
Your 'models' are, as already noted (repeatedly), irrelevant to your "theory" and vice versa.
So, you are claiming that submission of source code that has no relationship to your 'theory' to a site not dedicated or focused on science in any way, shape, or form, counts as a 'scientific victory'.
You are, quite literally, insane.
Let us consider the process of 'doing science'. Publication is neither the first step nor the last. It is considerably closer to the first step than the last, however.
You have not so much failed to take the requisite next step as you have refused to take the requisite next step -- engage with the criticisms and critiques raised against your 'publication' and either defend or modify your notions.
You fail right out of the gate by having no evidence and no foundations in reality.
You fail at the next step by not having actually managed to publish anything. No, PSC doesn't count, or does your obsessively repeated linking to your web-hosted ever-changing document.
You fail at the next step, which is engagement with criticism and critique.
You fail at the parallel step where you convince others of the general truth and utility of core elements of your 'theory'. This is hardly a surprise given that your 'theory' lacks sufficient coherence or clarity to claim to have 'core elements'.
No evidence, no data, no publication, no support, no agreement, no engagement with critics on the merits.
No science, not even a science fail, because you are not doing science.
You fail at, quite literally, everything you try.
Same as it ever was.
|
