On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at > the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the > direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending > skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof > involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by > Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if P&F were not > valid. If P&F are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating > Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore > what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible > expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims. > > Whew. My sympathies for your clients, if that's an example of your communication to them. But if I get the gist of it, I agree that if P&F is accepted, then Rossi should be considered more seriously. But, Rossi would know that P&F is accepted by a lot of people (many who are desperate to "spread the word", as if it is religious), and that the unwashed are rather susceptible to its claims. That would make cold fusion a rather fertile area for attracting investment for extraordinary claims, even if one's demos do no more than hint at them. So, whether or not one accepts P&F, without good evidence, skepticism of Rossi is well-advised, especially in view of his history.
