At 12:15 AM 6/2/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I just know I haven't seen any evidence the thing is real.
This is typical pseudoskepticism. Instead of "I haven't seen evidence that convinces me," it's a denial that evidence exists. It's very obvious that there is "evidence the thing is real," or Joshua would not even be commenting. Rather, Joshua, perhaps that is his real name, sees evidence and discounts it, for rather obvious reasons. Some of his criticisms of the evidence are cogent, at least to a degree, but that is quite different from denying the existence of evidence.
An attorney who makes a claim like his is going for summary judgment, for dismissal of a case (or the granting of a decision) based on the *complete lack of evidence to the contrary.* No court in their right mind would grant summary judgment in a civil case on evidence like we've seen, until after far more process and far more evidence and argument were gathered.
Cude is lying. He's seen evidence, and he's responded to it with argument after argument. If it were not evidence, he'd not have responded that way.
And I know that if the claims were real, it would not be hard to show clear evidence that it is real.
That's correct. But Joshua draws a conclusion from that which is simply a leap of faith. If it were not hard to show, therefore, it would be shown. And we know quite well why it might not be shown.
So the absence of clear evidence of nuclear effects is strong evidence of the absence of nuclear effects.
That's a bogus argument, logically, it's a mere assertion. And "nuclear effect" is a red herring. What if the origin of the heat is not nuclear, but is something else unknown?
There is, by the way, evidence that this is a nuclear effect. Joshua, here, weasels his way to make his statement true: "clear evidence." Actually, it's relatively clear, but it's also rather easily impeachable. Say it this way, the finding of copper as a possible ash has not been confirmed, and adequately investigated, as far as what we know publicly.
Saying that there is no clear evidence could be supported. But that's not where he started. He started with "I haven't seen any evidence." Not "any clear evidence."
Suppose there is only "weak evidence" of nuclear effect. That would satisfy Joshua's condition: the "absence of clear evidence." But it would not represent "strong evidence of the absence of nuclear effects."
No, at most, it would represent, by the weakness, and *at most*, weak evidence of the absence of nuclear effects.
What's special about nuclear effects? Some possible nuclear effects are very clear, easily detected, and this does, indeed, represent most of them. But not all. Some nuclear effects might be quite difficult to observe, it depends on the levels and the products. If we don't know what the effect is, we can't predict the visibility!
