Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old > and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know > better than philosophers and logicians. > > > True. > > And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... > It is recursive. Another situation in which a properly framed appeal to authority is acceptable, and often used, is in court testimony or in a Congressional Investigation. In a jury trial, it is enough to say that Prof. So-and-so, an expert in thus and such, and therefore his testimony should be admissible. The prof.'s reasons might be too complicated to explain to the jury, so the testimony might include only the reasons (or opinions, really) with no scientific backing, but it is still legitimate. As I said, it is supporting evidence, not proof. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Actually it is *postlogical thinking * http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html Galantini is a very local authorithy, and university professors are not necessarily experts in steam. Rossi is against the idea of measuring the ENTHALPY of steam,(as Jed also suggest via sparging) he has not published my message saying this. He again says that an output per input ratio of 6 will be guaranteed, taking in account that 1 kW electric = 3 kW thermic this is a low value. Serious doubts are re not the functionality but the* readiness* of the E-cat. Hopefully the Defkalion press conference will inject some optimism in this issue. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > ** > > > On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > >> If that's not "appealing to an authority" then I don't know the meaning of >> simple English sentences. >> > > You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning > does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language > often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic > context. I was referring the academic meaning of "fallacious appeal to > authority." > > > OK, your point. > > I said "appeal to authority", you said "fallacious appeal to authority" > ... what I'm talking about is neither fallacious, nor a logical fallacy, > it's merely not a convincing proof of anything. > > It is commonly used by people who either have no actual evidence to bolster > their position, or have sufficiently limited knowledge that they can't argue > the position themselves. In either case the weight of the argument depends > vitally on the degree to which the target of the appeal really is an > authority, because there is nothing else on which to base it. > > > > Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said > -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. > > That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical > fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. > > > >> Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase "appeal to >> authority" is actually used . . . > > > Not when you are discussion formal logic. > > > >> , and is far narrower than makes sense. >> > > No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old > and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know > better than philosophers and logicians. > > > True. > > And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... > > > > > In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but >> the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, >> we are left with a simple "appeal to authority", which, by itself, can never >> prove anything. >> > > A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but > it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an > academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when > talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat > me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only > interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and > techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi > did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. > > My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a > technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your > roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying > a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed > appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and > information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically > sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it > would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the > temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to > read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. > > > This is the difference between science, and everything else: In >> religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can >> say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and everybody jumps. In >> science, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and the >> usual response is, "What was his reasoning, and what's his data?" >> > > My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What > is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: If that's not "appealing to an authority" then I don't know the meaning of simple English sentences. You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of "fallacious appeal to authority." OK, your point. I said "appeal to authority", you said "fallacious appeal to authority" ... what I'm talking about is neither fallacious, nor a logical fallacy, it's merely not a convincing proof of anything. It is commonly used by people who either have no actual evidence to bolster their position, or have sufficiently limited knowledge that they can't argue the position themselves. In either case the weight of the argument depends vitally on the degree to which the target of the appeal really is an authority, because there is nothing else on which to base it. Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase "appeal to authority" is actually used . . . Not when you are discussion formal logic. , and is far narrower than makes sense. No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. True. And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple "appeal to authority", which, by itself, can never prove anything. A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and everybody jumps. In science, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and the usual response is, "What was his reasoning, and what's his data?" My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Just to reiterate, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Rossi is citing actual, bona fide authorities in the relevant field such as >> Dr. Galantini. That is a legitimate thing to do ... >> > > Not with a complete lack of cited data, not in any scientific forum. Rossi made it very clear to me that this *would not be* a scientific forum. That is why I stayed home. It was a journalistic forum. The ground rules are different. Perhaps Rossi did not make that clear to Krivit. Before you get on an airplane to visit someone, I recommend you discuss the agenda. Naturally there are gradations here. A science journalist can legitimately demand more explanations and more hard data information than a generalist reporter who has never heard of "wet steam" or a "thermocouple." As I said in the first message, it was reasonable for Krivit to ask for more data from Levi. Unfortunately, it seems he asked in a manner that Levi found insulting, or at least undiplomatic. I have spent a lot of time trying to pry papers out of researchers, in order to upload them to LENR-CANR.org. It is fine art. I have often failed to get the professor to cough up anything. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > If that's not "appealing to an authority" then I don't know the meaning of > simple English sentences. > You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of "fallacious appeal to authority." Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. > Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase "appeal to > authority" is actually used . . . Not when you are discussion formal logic. > , and is far narrower than makes sense. > No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. > In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the > evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we > are left with a simple "appeal to authority", which, by itself, can never > prove anything. > A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, > in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say "Joe > Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and everybody jumps. In science, you > can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and the usual response > is, "What was his reasoning, and what's his data?" > My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
On 11-06-17 06:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Someone here said that Rossi is offering "an appeal to authority." Strictly speaking, he is not. Yes, he is. His evidence that the steam is dry is "So-and-so says so." But no data is presented to back So-and-so's opinion; all we have is a bare conclusion by someone who is "an authority". What probe was used? What property of the effluent was measured? What was the measured value? Nobody knows! What are the error bars on the dryness measure? What's that, they don't have any? Oh, no, of course not -- it's an absolute statement: "It's *dry*". If that's not "appealing to an authority" then I don't know the meaning of simple English sentences. Jed has speculated that Rossi has performed his own simple tests to determine if the steam is dry (pass hand through steam, judge by feel) but AFAIK no evidence has ever been shown that even such simple tests were done. That would be a logical fallacy, called a "Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase "appeal to authority" is actually used, and is far narrower than makes sense. The argument "Joe said so", by itself, is never deductively valid, never fully conclusive, no matter how much of an authority Joe is. It only becomes a solid argument when we can not only quote Joe, but also cite the evidence Joe used to arrive at that conclusion. In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple "appeal to authority", which, by itself, can never prove anything. Show us the data -- heck, just tell us what measurement was actually done and what probe was really used to do it -- and then we'll have some evidence that the steam was dry (or wasn't). But without that, we have nothing but -- well -- hot air. Rossi is citing actual, bona fide authorities in the relevant field such as Dr. Galantini. That is a legitimate thing to do ... Not with a complete lack of cited data, not in any scientific forum. Galantini can say "It's dry!" 'till he's blue in the face, but unless he's willing to add something like, "And I know that because I measured XYZ property and it was less than ZYX value" it's just so much noise. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and everybody jumps. In science, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and the usual response is, "What was his reasoning, and what's his data?" Galantini said "It's dry". So, that's nice; if he'd said "It's sopping wet" it would have been Game Over. But where's his data?
[Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
As everyone here knows, Steve Krivit wrote a report about a visit to Rossi's factory in Bologna: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ On one hand, I thought this report was pretty good, but on the other hand I can well understand why it upset Rossi and Levi. This is unfortunate. I was hoping this visit would help clarify the situation, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. I think this is partly a misunderstand about the nature and purposes of these tests. Krivit is looking for one thing (legitimately) but Rossi is offering another (also legitimate). Krivit was looking for a scientific exposition, and Rossi was offering a press briefing. Here is one key difference. Someone here said that Rossi is offering "an appeal to authority." Strictly speaking, he is not. That would be a logical fallacy, called a "Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority": http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Rossi is citing actual, bona fide authorities in the relevant field such as Dr. Galantini. That is a legitimate thing to do in the context of explaining an experiment to a reporter. It is not, however, a legitimate argument in a scientific exposition at an academic conference, for example. In other words, Krivit saw himself acting as a scientific critic (which he did, ably) but Rossi saw him as a reporter. A reporter will be satisfied when he is told that Professor X is an expert in wet or dry steam; a scientific critic will want to see the data. Krivit makes an important point: detailed data has not been published. I was expecting it would beby now. When the tests were done earlier this year, Levi, and later Essen and Kullander published quick, preliminary reports. I heard they were planning to publish longer, more formal papers later. Maybe they are still working on them. The initial reports were pretty good. They were a reasonable first approximation -- the kind of thing you expect someone to write a few days after a test. I think anyone would agree with Krivit that more data is called for. It seems that he asked Levi for more data and this led to a dispute, and hard feelings, which is a real shame. I remarked briefly during the visit, "I hope Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements." I gather that was not on the agenda, and it was not the purpose of the visit. Again, that is a shame. Let me explain something about that remark. This is about an event I have not discussed. Strictly speaking it is a non-event. It did not happen, and it is of no importance. A couple of months ago, Rossi cordially invited me to visit the factory in Bologna. I was excited and pleased, naturally. I immediately responded saying I would be thrilled, and I would like to bring several thermometers, a graduated cylinder, I would like to do a flow test, a test sparging the steam with a 1 m hose, and so on, and so forth. Anyone who knows me will know that I am better at measuring temperatures than asking questions or interviewing people. Rossi came back and said (in effect): "no, that is not what I had mind. I meant you can come and observe the machine, and we will talk about it." In other words, he offered the kind of exposition and discussion that he gave to Steve Krivit. I thought about that for a while. But I told him that I am not cut out for that sort of thing, and I cannot see traveling all the way to Italy and not measuring the flow rate, inlet temperature, outlet temperature, mixing, and on and on. The only reason I would go is to do calorimetry. Rossi said he did not have time to do any more tests, and he feels the professors have already done enough calorimetry, and he did not want any more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I said: "naturally you are very busy; a test is time consuming and difficult. I would not want you to have take extra time out of your work just so that I can make measurements." We agreed that this is not the right time for a visit. It was a friendly discussion. The point is, I was hoping that I might help resolve some of these issues. A test sparging the steam is crude but I am confident that if it is done correctly it would help clarify the wet versus dry steam issue. To do it correctly you need a short hose, and you first confirm that the steam is not visible. This is the sort of thing I did at Hydrodynamics. I am obviously nowhere near as qualified as an expert such as Galantini! I would never, ever, challenge his authority in this matter. I never teach grandma how to suck eggs (as the expression goes). I can see why Krivit's comments rubbed Rossi the wrong way. Krivit seemed to be lecturing experts about wet and dry steam, which is bad form. It is effrontery. I *totally* understand why Rossi felt he does not need me to do this, and he does not have time for tests. On the other hand I do have significant experience doing this sort of thing with Gene Mallove. I am fanati
