On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
Cude >> I just know I haven't seen any evidence the thing is real. Lomax> This is typical pseudoskepticism. Instead of "I haven't seen evidence that convinces me," it's a denial that evidence exists. I agree that's what I meant. I haven't seen evidence that convinces me. I assumed that would be understood. But also, it hasn't convinced scientists in general. > It's very obvious that there is "evidence the thing is real," or Joshua would not even be commenting. It is very obvious that the evidence convinces some people, yes. And that keeps me entertained. Quite right. >> 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. OK. If there is some devious plan of Rossi's to get people to believe it's not real by using really bad demos, then my argument that the absence of a demo is evidence of the absence of an effect fails. But talk about contortions to cling to your belief. Incredible. But still, without evidence (yes, I mean evidence that convinces me), I still won't be convinced. Devious possible schemes notwithstanding. > 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. Relatively clear *and* 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. And even the copper that was claimed had the natural isotopic ratio. I'd say that evidence was thoroughly impeached. [quibbling extraordinaire deleted]
