On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can >> invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a >> university, >> > > Your statement applies to Rossi, not your own argument. *Your argument*has to > be falsifiable. It is not. You are the one invoking fairy godmothers > that no one can ever detect, even in principle. > > My statement has to be falsifiable and it is: simply by Rossi submitting his device to proper independent verification. I have no idea what you're saying above. Maybe someone can translate? It makes no sense at all to me. I'm really trying to understand you but I don't. Well... I suppose if Rossi's device proved to be fake, it still wouldn't necessarily reveal how he faked it. Is that what you're saying? If so, so what? If not, maybe say it some other way. The point I made was simply that you (or anyone) are unable to anticipate all the ways in which Rossi can fool you. Do you have a problem with that specific limited statement?
