On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A >> plausible method of fakery is not evidence of fakery. >> > > > Obviously not. But heat, by itself, is not evidence of a nuclear reaction, > if the same heat can be plausibly produced without nuclear reactions.
It is not sufficient evidence, but it still can be interpreted as evidence of nuclear reactions. Your alternative doesn't persuade me that the heat produced is worthless as evidence. As everyone knows, there are countless ways to fake the results. Each alternative suggests places where evidence of fraud might be found. In your thermal mass alternative you need to look for evidence that he misrepresented the electrical input power. Otherwise it is just an intellectual exercise. > Similarly, if I claimed to have superhuman strength, I would not convince > anyone by lifting a 50-lb bag of sugar, because you can lift 50 lb without > superhuman strength. > The analogy doesn't make sense to me. I think what you mean is that you show yourself effortlessly lifting 500lbs of sugar with one hand, while the lifting was actually done by a piano wire attached to a hidden hoist above the proscenium. Harry
