In fact, and it is my own position, and I understand that some disagree, For DGT I have passed the "I cannot explain". With my experience, my behavioral analysis of business, and various data and analysis gathered, I can say that the positive outcome (at a few details uncertain), is sure beyond the reasonable doubt.
For Rossi, I'm still uncomfortable, but beside clear lies and probable lies, and things to check, the key facts seems good, because of others reaction and claims. note that for me the claims are only action that someone do to expect reactions. I believe in something when the interpreted intent of that action, is only coherent with the positive outcome. to be simple, DGT have gone so far that assuming fraud or delusion, their reaction are neither rational, not even coherent with their psychiatric ( :> ) profile, and others reactions around. Their data, their discussions are coherent and evidence of knowledge linked to a real reactor, and their effort are nonsense is that real react is not mostly working maybe a little erratic, but enough stable to convince to bet your balls). their critics are even supporting their claims. Thanks to stremmenos and Rossi. thanks also to their board of director and their economic profile (anti-Rossi style). For Rossi, in fact his best support for me is DGT. don't laugh. Concezzi too. With my acquired conviction, I jump from a probabilistic conviction of 99.9%, to the translation in normal life : "I'm SURE", more than most of the things that circulate on TV, in news, in science... and believe me, I'm very skeptical in many things, from conspiracy theories to mainstream consensus, even to myself. I say you I'm SURE, but like sur rise in the morning, it have to be checked every morning, in case something have changed. I was criticizing the tendency in LENR community to be overcarefull. There is a moment in real life when you have to bet your ball, or rather stay in your bed and wait for death, which is sure. I'm sure LENR is real, DGT have a reactor not far from said, Rossi have good results. Anyway tomorrow morning, have to check if that have changed. 2012/7/8 Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> > ** > A pseudo-skeptic can not explain in his mind the results, therefore, in > his mind, since he can not explain it, must be a fraud. The assumption > undergriding a pseudo-skeptics attitude is that he understands everything > there is to understand about the subject, therefore whatever he does not > understand must be false. > > This of course is the sad state of attitude prevailing in modern science > nowadays. > >
