At 02:05 PM 4/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Too much proof makes people doubt.
Say what?!?
Okay, I assume that's a joke.
Well, psychologically he can be right. If you present piles of
evidence, particularly if you do it unskillfully, people can and will
assume you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
However, if we are going to present some data, it should be from work
showing excess heat/helium, which is actually much simpler to do,
because it does, in fact, bypass all the concern about leakage and
accuracy. Assume *no* accuracy, no correlation, and the results would
look very, very different, except for that one chance in a million
that they happen to match as well as they did in Miles' series. And
then consider the independent reports.
I've come to consider this conclusive, and it's time that the
pseudoskeptics get over it, and if someone continues to bluster and
bluff after they have come to understand what's been reported and
confirmed, I'd say that another pseudoskeptic has been identified.
Conclusively.
Of course, the trick is in getting that understanding across. The
persistence of vision from 1989 gets in the way. But that can be
overcome, I believe, not for the pseudoskeptics, but for those who
are ordinarily skeptical.
