Connectionists: Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing Lecture, etc.

[Maria Kesa]

My personal take and you can all kiss my ass message
https://fuckmyasspsychiatry.blogspot.com/2021/11/jurgen-schmidhuber-is-ethically-bankrupt.html

All the very best,
Maria Kesa

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:06 AM Randall O'Reilly <oreilly at ucdavis.edu>
wrote:

> Juergen,
>
> > Generally speaking, if B plagiarizes A but inspires C, whom should C
> cite? The answer is clear.
>
> Using the term plagiarize here implies a willful stealing of other
> people's ideas, and is a very serious allegation as I'm sure you are
> aware.  At least some of the issues you raised are clearly not of this
> form, involving obscure publications that almost certainly the so-called
> plagiarizers had no knowledge of.  This is then a case of reinvention,
> which happens all the time is still hard to avoid even with tools like
> google scholar available now (but not back when most of the relevant work
> was being done).  You should be very careful to not confuse these two
> things, and only allege plagiarism when there is a very strong case to be
> made.
>
> In any case, consider this version:
>
> If B reinvents A but publishes a much more [comprehensive | clear |
> applied | accessible | modern] (whatever) version that becomes the main way
> in which many people C learn about the relevant idea, whom should C cite?
>
> For example, I cite Rumelhart et al (1986) for backprop, because that is
> how I and most other people in the modern field learned about this idea,
> and we know for a fact that they genuinely reinvented it and conveyed its
> implications in a very compelling way.  If I might be writing a paper on
> the history of backprop, or some comprehensive review, then yes it would be
> appropriate to cite older versions that had limited impact, being careful
> to characterize the relationship as one of reinvention.
>
> Referring to Rumelhart et al (1986) as "popularizers" is a gross
> mischaracterization of the intellectual origins and true significance of
> such a work.  Many people in this discussion have used that term
> inappropriately as it applies to the relevant situations at hand here.
>
> > Randy also wrote: "how little Einstein added to what was already
> established by Lorentz and others". Juyang already respectfully objected to
> this misleading statement.
>
> I beg to differ -- this is a topic of extensive ongoing debate:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute -- specifically
> with respect to special relativity, which is the case I was referring to,
> not general relativity, although it appears there are issues there too.
>
> - Randy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20211115/3bbd31b2/attachment.html>