Absolutely a BS logical deduction. By that same reasoning, air planes are totally useless because they are not used as frequently as bicyles, motorcycles, and cars. That earth movers and excavators are useless because their are not as many of those as there are shovels, power drills or screwdrivers. That ocean going oil tankers are not useful because they are a minority in oil transportation designs compared to rail tankers and semi-tankers.
If it's the right tool, device, design ... use it ... even if relatively rare in use globally.
The experts basically agree that Fuzzy logic, especially when used for control systems, is a different mathmatical frame work for representing probabliity based inputs into a system, and that it takes some pretty serious math to prove that the resulting system is stable -- not unlike a traditional control system design which has probability based control functions and inputs which are not continuous. There are also a number of trivial FL designs, which clearly can be implemented other ways, and in many cases probably should be for real world applications. There are also designs where traditional mathmatical models of the system simply are not practical to develop, where researchers find that FL systems combined with other AI approaches yeild usable solutions, which may or may not be as optimal as if you spent the time to actually discover a more formal description of the problem (if at all possible) and use traditional approaches.
I also read that series a couple years ago, and the nut of it was that he insulted a lot of people and expected them then to argue with him to debate the merits of the technology, and when they didn't used that as proof in the final article that he was right.
Which may well be partially true today, given the lack of tools and huge bias left over from 25 years of teaching people that async is bad. I did my VLSI class 20+ years ago using Carver Mead and Lynn Conway's book which also discussed async designs with the instructor absolutely bashing async design, as probably a few hundred thousand other students have been subjected to the sync only mantra. I did a self clocked high speed data separator for my project, which didn't go over well, but was also impossible as a clocked design for the techology of the day.
But you seem to argue more than just the point of fuzzy or async being unreasonable for many projects, you seem to also argue that they aren't reasonable for ANY project. Frequenty by dismissing the results of actual projects with conjecture that you somehow could do the same with sync design. And that really is asserting that you some how know better than those other researchers and engineers, even when you also state you do not have experience designing with these technologies.
BS.
You were given references which directly refute this ... which if you actually read, you are then implicitly claiming those references are somehow fraudulent, or otherwise incorrect, without providing proof in your unfounded claim above. If you did not read, and analyze, then you do not have the right to make this claim before doing so, and sucessfully refuting their work.
You were provided references for the arm project, which clearly state the operating power of the async design was 1/3 that of the clocked reference design in units of W/MHz, which you promptly ignore because the resulting target design was slower. This IS a valid measurement when power scales linearly with clock rate.
You were provided references, and more are available, where PL async tools where applied to existing sync designs, and significant power reduction resulted.
The sync reference design was the ARM968E-S described as "Smallest, lowest power ARM9E Family CPU to date (gate count = 80% of ARM966E-S)" by the developers, who obviously are very proud that they got the size and power down again on this iteration of their product. You are effectively stating that you can take their optimized sync design, and reduce it's power per megahertz by 65+% as the folks at Handshake Solutions did -- which implies that you consider the ARM.com team that did the ARM968E-S core design pretty close to clueless and incompetent NO? I would guess that the ARM.com team is far from incompetent when it comes to optimizing their design.
The handshake solutions team then takes that netlist, and applies async design tools to it, and manages to reduce it's power significantly ...
then dismiss with "Likewise, I have not seen any convincing evidence of lower power than you can achieve using sync designs if your goal is to reduce power consumption."
It seems, that you refuse to accept the evidence, and refuse to refute it, offering only the assertion that you can do better, and fail to even justify that with proof.