6 ms·
This doesn't rebut anything from the best critique of the Apple paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09250 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09250
by avsteele 1y ago
This doesn't rebut anything from the best critique of the Apple paper.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09250 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09250
- Jabbles 1y agoThose are points (2) and (5).
- foldr 1y agoIt does rebut point (1) of the abstract. Perhaps not convincingly, in your view, but it does directly addresses this kind of response.
- avsteele 1y agoPapers make specific conclusions based on specific data. The paper I linked specifically rebuts the conclusions of the paper. Gary makes vague statements that could be interpreted as being related. It is scientific malpractice to write a post supposedly rebutting responses to a paper and not directly address the most salient one.
- foldr 1y agoThis sort of omission would not be considered scientific malpractice even in a journal article, let alone a blog post. A rebuttal of a position that fails to address the strongest arguments for it is a bad rebuttal, but it’s not scientific malpractice to write a bad paper — let alone a bad blog post. I don’t think I agree with you that GM isn’t addressing the points in the paper you link. But in any case, you’re not doing your argument any favors by throwing in wild accusations of malpractice.
- avsteele 1y agoMalpractice slightly hyperbolic. But anybody relying on Gary's posts in order to be be informed on this subject is being being mislead. This isn't an isolated incident either. People need to be made be aware when you read him it is mere punditry, not substantive engagement with the literature.
- spookie 1y agoA paper citing arxiv papers and x.com doesn't pass my smell test tbh