Mary Yugo wrote:
I suspect he practices misdirection ...We agree. I think his entire performance at the demos consists mostly of misdirection.
Even if that were true, a 30 L vessel of water cannot remain at boiling temperature for 4 hours, so we can be sure the claims are true. There is a limit to how much misdirection can accomplish. There is a limit to how much confusion the inept use of instruments can introduce. In this case, you can throw out all of the instruments and still be certain of the results.
Actually, by "misdirection" I had in mind some of his statements in his blog, not his demonstrations. The demonstrations are straightforward and easy to understand. Sloppy, with third-rate instrumentation, but no misdirection. No skeptic has discovered any significant error, or any reason to doubt the overall conclusion. Anyone can see many annoying errors that detract from the results and make the results imprecise, but that is not the same as significance. As long as the error cannot cause the result to be wrong, it does not matter how big it is. In some physics experiments, the error bars are huge but the result is still irrefutable. In others experiments, the error bars are small, the methods and instruments are impeccable -- the best available -- but unfortunately the results are unconvincing.
Many skeptics do not seem to understand this distinction. They look at the factors a college instructor would cite in grading an lab exercise: neatness, correct use of instruments, documentation, exposition, positioning of thermocouples, and other did-you-follow-the-textbook criteria. They become so obsessed with these details they overlook the actual test results, and the fundamental physics the test demonstrates.
- Jed
