N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 25 2015,18:13) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 25 2015,16:02) | | I've downloaded your code a couple of times. You cannot count me as someone who finds your stuff useful. |
You do not even program game or scientific software that the code applies to. In your case it's like a biologist claiming that giant telescopes are useless to them for seeing inside cells therefore astronomy is a pseudoscience.
I figure that around 1 in 100 will later experiment with something they learned about from the information in the download.
At places like the Kurzweil AI forum the regular readers don't even need the download. What I explained in the forum is enough to work from, using whatever programming language they already use. It's so easy to add into existing software by just typing the code lines in by hand they don't even need to see how I coded it, to add it real quick into theirs.
It's hard to count how many times it has been experimented with, but I was being conservative enough in my estimate. With the way the model and theory is useful in so many different areas of science I would expect thousands of applications the theory can ultimately be used in.
And I need to add that all the comments at the NCSE blog vanished, from at least my screen. It's like a weird Grinch stole Christmas story. But for all else it's still preserved here:
disqus.com/by/gary_gaulin |
BS.
First, I've published several computer programs (in scientific journals, so it can be done!), albeit not recently. This means that I have some qualifications in the area, even if I'm not working in your specific area. But let me be more precise: I don't see much value in your program, either for my own interests or for anyone else interested in the evolutionary & biological areas that you claim to be addressing, because your model does not simulate the sort of stuff that you claim it does. It's less a ground-truthed model and more of playing with semantics obscured by a whole lot of computer coding.
Second, you said, "This includes all the people who have downloaded and experimented with any of the ID Lab models." Again, you said "ALL". I account for two of the downloads, and I am not included in the people who find your model useful.
Third, your estimates are grossly mistaken, because they wrongly assume that there is something worthwhile to be found in your programs.
| Quote | | With the way the model and theory is useful in so many different areas of science I would expect thousands of applications the theory can ultimately be used in. |
That might be true if you had demonstrated any usefulness or applicability, and if you had ground-truthed your model, but you haven't done that, so this claim is merely another unsupported assertion on your part. And your stuff doesn't yet qualify as a theory.
|
