Believers without Skeptics are blandly blind. Skeptics without Believers are blindly sterile.
The forever fecund spontaneous creativity of the "present" moment is not bound in the least by any binding limits of spaces, times, causalities, "separate" identities, perceptions, concepts, emotions, logics, mathematics... the son of science has no bed where he can lay his head... the eternal jam session best includes all volunteer voices... how boring to exclude the incisive imperfect Joshua Cude from our children's playground... let the idiot who has never drooled throw the first stone... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote: > > but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of >>> articulate skeptics. >>> >> >> If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you >> write about it? >> > > I would not call Cude "articulate." As McKubre often says, I could do a > better job as a cold fusion skeptic than any of the skeptics. I know of > actual weaknesses in the experiments, whereas Cude makes up stuff, > reiterates assertions that was proved wrong in 1990, and refuses to address > substantive technical issues such as McKubre's Fig. 1. Where are the meat > and potatoes? > > I do not think Cude is a credit to the hardcore skeptics. But then, I do > not know anyone else who is. This is like expecting someone to be a > credible spokesperson for the Flat Earth Society. Vorl Bek should take a > crack at justifying this point of view if he thinks it has any merit. > > - Jed > >
