I wrote:
> "One question for Mr. Guglielmi. > > If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test > unethical?" > > . . . Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my > remarks! Ah, he did answer the first question, with a song and dance: ". . . I would consider the test unethical if the answers to my two questions: 1) How does your paper advance knowledge? 2) Who will benefit from it? would come out as something like: 1) It doesn't; 2) Rossi and his associates. Obviously, if the test exposed a fraud the answer to question number (2) would become `Nobody´, and this would somehow mitigate the lack of ethics. Still, the answer to question (1) might be the same, and we still have to consider that these scientists did make experiments in a commercial facility and without being in control." Guglielmi is a "logician in computer science." A logician in the classic academic sense; an expert in splitting hairs and chopping logic. When people like this come out of the woodwork with daft arguments I get a sense we may be making progress. This is the best they can come up with. - Jed
