Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeInsenstivity to speakers of foreign languages
Posted by loswald on 05 Mar 2016 at 04:16 GMT
The retraction of this article does not make any sense. English is my second/ third language, and to me, it is clear as day that the authors wanted to use the word "nature" and not creator. Clearly, there are no insidious religious motivations for sneaking in the word "creator": a creationist would not have mentioned "millions of years of evolution" in the same breath as the creator. Perhaps the editorial board needs listen to "Google Translate Sings" videos on youtube, they're a lesson in how hilariously terrible translations can sometimes be.
RE: Insenstivity to speakers of foreign languages
loswald replied to loswald on 05 Mar 2016 at 04:18 GMT
*Insensitivity *needs to listen
RE: Insenstivity to speakers of foreign languages
Boötes replied to loswald on 05 Mar 2016 at 08:10 GMT
"nature" instead of "creator" in the abstract is still wrong. There is only evidence that robotics can learn from nature.