Originally Posted by wogoga
Goodness me. They can't?
You haven't heard of "genetic algorithms"? I spent something like five years of my life doing exactly that --- randomly changing bits and bytes in computer-implemented algorithms and looking to see which of the random changes resulted in performance iimprovements. I've personally published something like thirty papers based on findings generated by this technique.
More importantly, they're not papers about "genetic algorithms" per se. You can't get papers published about "genetic algorithms," any more, since the technique is so standard no program committee will consider it novel. GA are yet another optimization technique (like hill-climbing, but better at avoiding the problem of local maxima); any reearcher in any
field of modelling, from aeronautics to zoology, is generally familiar with GA as a generic problem-solving technique if they're at all competent.
Should I return my Ph.D. on the grounds that what I did -- and what the committee saw me do, and accepted, and what thousands of researchers world-wide do routinely on a daily basis -- is impossible?
So is the four humour theory of disease; that dates back to Galen. Something else the two hypotheses have in common is that they're both completely and entirely wrong. Geocentrism? The flat Earth? Sympathetic magic? People have been wrong for a very long time.
Not at all. I'm a professional researcher. Show me some evidence that my worldview is wrong, and I'll change it. But you've got no evidence.