N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | I don't waste time on what is not needed, or matters. |
Yes you do. That's all you do. You don't have valid definitions, standard usage of terms, comprehensible presentation, ideas that make sense, or supporting evidence that confirms the existence and efficacy of the controversial aspects of the phenomena that you assert, so your stuff is worthless.
| Quote | | where it's standard practice to provide [a theory] |
No it's not. Although a theory can indeed result from a single publication (note, after general acceptance), standard scientific practice is (1) to provide logical operational definitions or follow standard usage, (2) to make and report new observations, and/or (3) to propose multiple working testable hypotheses, find ways to disproof them, obtain the required observations or run the required experiments as cleanly as possible, and (4) publish the results. Theories emerge from that process.
| Quote | | What someone else came up with for a definition is irrelevant to a theory of operation for a system being modeled. How that exact system works must be explained, not some other. |
Wow, is that ever wrong (at least, when you lack adequate operational definitions). Modelling on the basis of bad definitions means GIGO, castles built on sand. As you show so often and so perfectly.
| Quote | | Edgar's ideas might work for an Atheist looking for a religious view to feel intellectually fulfilled by, or someone looking for a strawman argument to use against the model and theory I use and defend. |
and | Quote | | I write for people who need to know about David Heiserman's machine intelligence work, and what it's useful for. |
OK, so you answered my third question by showing that you don't understand Postrado's claims either: thanks. That aside, according to your own assertions and standards, since Heiserman's ideas and your own have been superseded by Postrado's more recent and broader "theory", it's now your responsibility to drop that and work on the new ideas, to accept Postrado's ideas until you can disprove them or come up with a yet-better idea. Again, according to you.
And how about poor old Bob Berenz?
|
