>> >> http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/engineering/extranet/research-groups/neuroengineering-lab/ > > > There are always more papers that can be discussed.
OK, sure, but this is a more recent paper **by the same authors, discussing the same data*** and more recent similar data. > > But that does not change the fact that we provided arguments to back up our > claims, when we analyzed the original Quiroga et al paper, and all the > criticism directed against our paper on this list, in the last week or so, > has completely ignored the actual content of that argument. My question is how your arguments apply to their more recent paper discussing the same data It seems to me that their original paper was somewhat sloppy in the theoretical discussion accompanying the impressive data, and you largely correctly picked on their sloppy theoretical discussion ... and now, their more recent works have cleaned up much of the sloppiness of their earlier theoretical discussions. Do you disagree with this? It's not very interesting to me to dissect the sloppy theoretical discussion at the end of an experimental paper from a few years ago. What is more interesting to me is whether the core ideas underlying the researchers' work are somehow flawed. If their earlier discussion was sloppy and was pushed back on by their peers, leading to a clearer theoretical discussion in their current papers, then that means that the scientific community is basically doing what it's supposed to do.... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
