At 03:24 PM 6/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell
<<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Driscoll <<mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com>hcarb...@gmail.com> wrote:
yes, the meters measure the humidity of air, not steam quality.
Galantini used the wrong instrument
So you say, but Galantini and the manufacturers say differently.
The manufacturers do not say differently. Only Galantini does. He
could be wrong.
Actually, what does Galantini say. I haven't notice him say anything, really.
Putting aside who is the pre-eminent expert (you, or the guy who
designed the meter), you cannot argue with the second test.
Then why did they bother with the 3rd, 4rth, 5th, and 6th demo? And
why didn't they use the method of the 2nd in the subsequent demos?
Rothwell is defending the indefensible here -- at least with the
evidence we have -- and Cude is asserting another of his
pseudoskeptical "how come" arguments. Habits. Both of them, I'd
guess, are arguing from independent conclusions, defending or
attacking evidence that they imagine leads to contrary conclusions.
Arguing from conclusions is generally a bad habit! It blinds us.
