[avsteele]

This doesn't rebut anything from the best critique of the Apple paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09250

[Jabbles]

Those are points (2) and (5).

[foldr]

It does rebut point (1) of the abstract. Perhaps not convincingly, in your view, but it does directly addresses this kind of response.

[avsteele]

Papers make specific conclusions based on specific data. The paper I linked specifically rebuts the conclusions of the paper. Gary makes vague statements that could be interpreted as being related.

It is scientific malpractice to write a post supposedly rebutting responses to a paper and not directly address the most salient one.

[foldr]

This sort of omission would not be considered scientific malpractice even in a journal article, let alone a blog post. A rebuttal of a position that fails to address the strongest arguments for it is a bad rebuttal, but it’s not scientific malpractice to write a bad paper — let alone a bad blog post.

I don’t think I agree with you that GM isn’t addressing the points in the paper you link. But in any case, you’re not doing your argument any favors by throwing in wild accusations of malpractice.

[avsteele]

Malpractice slightly hyperbolic.

But anybody relying on Gary's posts in order to be be informed on this subject is being being mislead. This isn't an isolated incident either.

People need to be made be aware when you read him it is mere punditry, not substantive engagement with the literature.

[spookie]

A paper citing arxiv papers and x.com doesn't pass my smell test tbh