On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:29 AM, Martin wrote: > Lynn W. Taylor wrote: >> Paul D. Buck wrote: >> >>> The saddest thing about this whole discussion is that I seem to be >>> the >>> only one in the world that wants to improve the rigor with which >>> we do >>> the science we as a collective claim to be so concerned about... >>> >>> I will say it again, it is not about getting results ... it is about >>> getting correct results ... and we should be willing to pay the >>> costs to >>> get correct results. > [...] >> It is up to each project to provide their own science application, >> and >> to determine how they can best validate the results. >> >> BOINC can only provide tools, they can't (and shouldn't) make their >> use >> compulsory. > > Crossed lines on the communication there? Multiple viewpoint > versions of > "correct"?...
My opinion, which does not seem to count for much... a lot of both. The major disconnect is that I have a stronger version of the definition of "correct". The simple version of "correct" is that if it validates, it is correct. I obviously cannot come up with a satisfactory answer of how my version of "correctness" is more rigorous, or at least one that is acceptable, but it involves the idea that there may be errors that the validator will not catch because the compared "answers" are in agreement. But are not correct. Two people standing on the beach, they both agree that the sun rises in the west ... the validator for all projects extant would say that this is a "correct" answer because the answers agree ... but they are in fact wrong, the sun still rises in the east ... _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
