Harry, I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite). I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me. It suits me also in terms of what I have learned from doing science. It is easy to be believe you are on something when you actually have nothing. Skepticism is a form of discipline that every rational mind should have. While it can have its pitfalls and become excessive, real skepticism is not being close minded. Often, skeptics mention exactly what it will take for them to change their mind on a particular matter. It has been done in this forum many times by various skeptics and the "demands" are usually very reasonable. I think zealous skeptics are extremely rare and even in that case it is easy to reason with them. No skeptics would ever deny real evidence. Unfortunately my experience with believers of any kind is that it is almost impossible to convince them of anything and no amount of proof or reasoning would make change their stance on a subject. They always find a way out, no matter how many mental summersaults they need to do to justify their claims.
Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. > > Harry > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi > <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The > path > > of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little > about > > constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this > > information one can apply it for useful science. > > > > I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just > > the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but > > also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack > > of repeatability and the absence of large number of widespread, reliable > > witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can > > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of > > pseudoscience. > > > > Giovanni > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to > >>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider > it > >>> factual evidence at this point. > >> > >> > >> Why not? > >> > >> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy? > >> > >> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher > >> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always > >> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It > resembles > >> Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five > days, > >> evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and > Akimoto. > >> you have to depend upon their honesty. > >> > >> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain > >> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion > will > >> know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is > >> regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition. > >> > >> - Jed > >> > > > >
