On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Well said. Go post that on the website. Why not?
>
***I tried posting 2 comments along the same vein. They have not been
released. In fact, it looks like no comments have been released for more
than a day.
It seems tha the scientific community have not slipped, but is in "normal
science" mode, as Thomas Kuhn explain...
if you cannot integrate the fact in the know paradigm, adjust a detail
keeping the main paradigm, then last alternative is denying facts...
when facts cannot be ignored, because you n
May 29, 2013 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller wrote:
Jed:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is
Cude:
Why do you bother to respond when you post replies like that.
The result of the paper is different than the paper? Come now, the result
of the paper is a component of the paper, as a component, if it advances
knowledge, then the whole advances knowledge. Didn't you take logic in
your trai
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller wrote:
> Jed:
>
> His two questions can easily be answered.
>
> 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
> impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
> potential misperception by the scient
Randy Wuller wrote:
>
> His two questions can easily be answered.
>
> 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
> impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
> potential misperception by the scientific community. . . .
>
Well said. Go p
Jed:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is
a much more significan
I wrote:
> "One question for Mr. Guglielmi.
>
> If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test
> unethical?"
>
>
. . . Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my
> remarks!
Ah, he did answer the first question, with a song and dance:
". . . I would co
He did reply to that question. Maybe you missed it. He hasn't replied to
your messages yet.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> As this site:
>
> http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html
>
> Someone wrote the perfect response:
>
>
> "One question for
As this site:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html
Someone wrote the perfect response:
"One question for Mr. Guglielmi.
If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test
unethical?"
That's hysterical.
I posted a few messages here, since Gugliemi
10 matches
Mail list logo