From: Mark Abraham (Mark.Abraham_at_anu.edu.au)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 00:35:35 CST
Richard Wood wrote:
> However, Mark, you missed my point. You're also confusing "reliable"
> with "reputation". If one is well-known, anything they do will be seen
> to be reliable. Thus, someone developing their own topolgies and
> parameters that is unknown, will be seen as being unrliable, when in
> fact, they could be very reliable.
Sorry, as used normally, neither the words "reliable" nor "reputable"
imply the other....
"reputable. 1. held in good repute; honorable; respectable; estimable: a
reputable organization. 2. considered to be good or acceptable usage;
standard: reputable speech."
"reliable. 1. that may be relied on; dependable in achievement,
accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information."
One of these is a judgement about a quality, the other is a quality. I
can be reliably crazy while actually being reputably sane, or vice-versa.
It is true that people will often use reputation to estimate
reliability, but if you read the words I used, I observed that it was
irrational to dismiss as unreliable a forcefield when it's been observed
to reproduce pertinent observables. If you haven't observed its
performance, however, then it is reasonable to dismiss a forcefield on
the basis of reputation, at the risk of making an error in that
judgement :-) Your original observation used only the word "reliable"...
perhaps you meant "reputable", now that you're talking about force
fields being "well known" and "seen as" :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Feb 29 2012 - 15:44:25 CST