Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory

[Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

7/09/2004 11:10:53 AM, elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I have to reorder that a bit. For instance, I'll start
with the end, like this:

>(Note: I'm not saying that Rugg is right or that he demonstrated all necessary 
>care in his work. I'm just surprised by the degree of hostility exhibited 
>towards him. Is it because everybody's afraid he might take away their pet 
>toy...?)

I won't mince my words. Rugg is either a fraud or a loon.
And a dangerous and obnoxious one, because if his drivel
about the VMS helping research into Alzheimer's disease 
ever takes off, that will be so much less funding for
real research. You are surprised by the degree of
hostility? Imagine yourself, say, as a mathematician. 
Now imagine someone turning up with a solution to
the squaring of the circle (not sure this is the
right English term. La quadrature du cercle, we call
it). And getting it published in Scientific American.
It would not matter if it had been published in UFO Monthly
or Nexus. Publishing stupidities is their mission. But
Scientific American is another story.

>Well, the VM is obviously made to appear meaningful.

Loaded. Equivalent to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
"The VM is obvious _made_ to appear meaningful" 
already implies that its authors meant to deceive and
that it is meaningless.
 
>> No indeed. That [the use of Cardan grills] is irrelevant, totally irrelevant.

>Irrelevant for what?

Irrelevant for the output text. A random text mimicking real text
can be generated in a number of ways. The manner in which it is
generated is irrelevant. What is relevant is:

Method X generates text similar to Text Z.
Therefore Text Z is a hoax.

>From which follows:

All texts are hoaxes (because it is always possible to devise
some method, or methods, to mimic a text).

> I thought you were saying Rugg is wrong -- or are you 
>saying Rugg might be right, but "Hoax" is the wrong term for what has been done 
>with the VM?

All right, let me reword that in one-syllable words: Rugg is full
of shit.


>So, _if_ the VM is meaningless, the best anyone can do is to _show_ (ie 
>demonstrate with a reasonable degree of match) the method.

Irrelevant. See above.

>Even if Rugg is 
>right

He is wrong. See above. Therefore, I correct that to:

>Even if Rugg were
>right in all regards, he wouldn't [was: won't] be able 
>to give you the hard proof you're asking 
>for, since it is hard even for you to define 
>the criteria for this.

Another slip of logic. That it is hard for me to define
the criteria in no way means that there are no criteria.
The onus is on whoever wants to prove whatever. Let him
define or rather, elaborate the criteria. Our first task, 
then, is to examine those criteria and see if they hold up to 
the facts. There is nothing like that in Rugg's paper.
It's all huff, puff, and muddle.


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list