Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

GEOSTATS: R. Shurtz and Paper or electronic version of SIC ?

Expand Messages
  • Gregoire Dubois
    Greetings to all, it seems to be that Robert Shurtz is shaking again the world of the geostatisticians ! In his agressive letter to the participants of the
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 22, 1997
      Greetings to all,

      it seems to be that Robert Shurtz is shaking again the world of the geostatisticians !
      In his "agressive" letter to the participants of the Geostats Congress of Wollongong
      (22-27 September 96), R. F. Shurtz is warning that "geostatisticians should prepare
      themselves to answer more penetrating and perceptive questions in the future than in the past".
      It is also underlined that "Scientific progress is made through public debate of disagreements"
      and "that airing of these disagreements will be usefull to all interested parties".

      I would welcome Robert Shurtz on AI-GEOSTATS but don't have his email address. Does
      anybody have it ?

      It would be also nice to have his unpublished papers in an electronic format so
      that they would be accessible to all.


      Something completely different now.

      As you have noticed, SIC 97 has started. You still can join in !

      The purpose of my mail is to know the format of the publication of SIC
      the subscribers of ai-geostats would prefer to have.

      2 possibilities: an online version in html in an electronic journal or
      a printed hardcopy which won't be free.

      If the hardcopy version is chosen, how many of you would be interested to
      purchase a copy of it ?

      I need such information to have an idea on how many copies I should order
      and how much it would cost.

      Again, if for ethical reason no benefit will be made with ai-geostats,
      I really would like to avoid to lose money !

      Such information would be very helpfull for me.


      You will understand that priority will be given to the requests made by
      the participants of SIC 97.

      Final decision will be taken by the SIC Committee.

      Thank you for your cooperation


      Best regards


      Gregoire

      <gregoire.dubois@...>
      <Moderator of the ai-geostats mailing list>
      <http://java.ei.jrc.it/rem/gregoire/>
      --
      *To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@....
      *As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary
      of any useful responses to your questions.
      *To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@... with no subject and
      "unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body.
      DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list!
    • Mohammad J Abedini
      Greetings, A quick comment on Shurtz s criticism is as follow: As I am Popperian in terms of growth of my ignorance, I will always learn from my mistakes. I
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 22, 1997
        Greetings,

        A quick comment on Shurtz's criticism is as follow:

        As I am Popperian in terms of growth of my ignorance, I will always learn
        from my mistakes. I need those success if there is any but those success
        just act as a bridge nothing more.

        Now look at the traditional paradigm of thinking to accept paper for
        publication. Almost all papers were talking about their success. If one
        tries to elaborate on his failure then the chance for publication is very
        low.

        For a while, I was thinking why the book entitled "Introduction to applied
        geostatistics" is so impressive to all. My own conclusion was that the
        authors elaborated on their failure in higher percentage as compared to
        their success.

        In order to have progress in science, we need to have so called "clash of
        opinion". Writing papers or books or .. to recieve tenure or whatever you
        name it will get us nowhere.

        As a reader of published articles in SIC project, what I am really
        expecting to see is some sort of elaboration on failure and the reason for
        why this approach fail and that approach give rise to promising results.
        As we all have access to the original dataset, the beauty of the cited
        project could be that the claim behind the papers be reproducable by not
        only writers of articles but also the readers of them.

        Hope this short comments initiate more fruitful discussion on this
        important topic.

        Best of luck
        Abedini

        --
        *To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@....
        *As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary
        of any useful responses to your questions.
        *To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@... with no subject and
        "unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body.
        DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list!
      • Gregoire Dubois
        ... I can only agree with such mail. We too often learn from succes stories and those who wish to try something unpublished take the risk to repeat a work
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 22, 1997
          Mohammad J Abedini wrote:
          >
          >
          > Now look at the traditional paradigm of thinking to accept paper for
          > publication. Almost all papers were talking about their success. If one
          > tries to elaborate on his failure then the chance for publication is very
          > low.
          >
          > In order to have progress in science, we need to have so called "clash of
          > opinion". Writing papers or books or .. to recieve tenure or whatever you
          > name it will get us nowhere.
          >
          > As a reader of published articles in SIC project, what I am really
          > expecting to see is some sort of elaboration on failure and the reason for
          > why this approach fail and that approach give rise to promising results.
          > As we all have access to the original dataset, the beauty of the cited
          > project could be that the claim behind the papers be reproducable by not
          > only writers of articles but also the readers of them.
          >
          > Hope this short comments initiate more fruitful discussion on this
          > important topic.


          I can only agree with such mail.

          We too often learn from succes stories and those who wish to try something "unpublished" take
          the risk to repeat a work done by others and to fail for the same reasons.

          It is certainly a waste of time and energy if such risk is not explained and shown to others.

          When we follow the main tracks indicated by published papers (or a PhD supervisor....), we
          restrict our vision of the problems by not knowing where other secondary roads are leading.

          This can be illustrated by the publications I have collected about rainfall interpolation in
          the main journals for hydrogeology and meteorology:

          various methods have been initially compared on very few datasets. It has been shown
          that geostats were interesting to use (when applied on averaged data which is not a big surprise).
          The amount of papers involving only geostatistics has then dramatically increased
          so that newcomers to such field had a complete biased view on how to approach the problem of rainfall
          interpolation. Geostatistics have been even blindly applied without taking into account basic
          hypothesis like the stationnarity. How often would have an Inverse Distance Weighted interpolation
          method been a more realistic way to interpolate the data ? I strongly believe this would have shown
          big surprises.

          This might be a caricature but I believe it is not too far from reality.

          The existence of AI-GEOSTATS itself is due to the "fashions" and trends generated by the too
          selective approach of international journals.

          I hope such mailing list can justify in a better way the reason of being of existing trends.

          For a specific and simple problem, SIC should be a way to define clearly what are possible
          roads and where these roads are leading instead of telling the reader which road he must take.

          I have been looking these last months for potential publishers of SIC.
          If few international journals (I won't give names) have shown a serious
          interest in it, nobody has really understood that it is not the paper written by
          the participant which is the main point. As a consequence, I first have received
          offers to have "the best papers" selected by an external committee and to have
          these papers published in a journal.

          It is of course nonsense and not at all the purpose of SIC.

          The more papers we will have, the more interesting will become each paper because we
          will have the chance to compare various methods applied on the same dataset.

          Therefore, our condition for publishing SIC is to have all contributions published,
          regardless of the results obtained (unless of course the method used is too poorly described).

          The editorial board of SIC will then have to compare the methods used and analyse the results
          in order to get more general conclusions. Such work makes only sense if the reader can judge
          himself by looking at the source and make his own conclusions.


          Have all a nice week-end,

          best regards


          Gregoire



          <gregoire.dubois@...>
          <Moderator of the ai-geostats mailing list>
          <http://java.ei.jrc.it/rem/gregoire/>
          --
          *To post a message to the list, send it to ai-geostats@....
          *As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary
          of any useful responses to your questions.
          *To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@... with no subject and
          "unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body.
          DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list!
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.