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 <sa...@pobox.com>wrote: > ** > > > On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Stephen A. Lawrence <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... <g> > > > > > 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
