Joshua:
You make that point all the time. It is one of your favorites, but it is
really unsupported speculation and not worth considering.
First, telling us how the majority of observers feel about the report is
clearly beyond your knowledge. As Eric suggested making those claims without
proof (poll, census, etc.) is not only unscientific it is undoubtedly just self
serving on your part. You must recognize that it doesn't mean anything to
those reading your critiques, unless they don't think critically.
Second, this isn't 1989. Most scientists who read the report are aware of the
history. The idea that we will have a repeat of 1989 is unlikely. The
scientific community passed up the opportunity to investigate this science long
ago and are now at the mercy of the entrepreneur, if it is real. I can
speculate just as you. My speculation is that based on this report the
scientific community will likely pay more attention to the developments in this
area and will await further testing and other disclosures before taking active
steps to investigate. Some might begin doing some testing and in fact that has
probably occurred since Rossi first presented his demo, but most will likely
wait and watch. However, I doubt they will conclude as you do that the report
is meaningless.
But that is mere speculation, no different than yours.
One thing I am certain about is that you don't speak for the scientific
community. If you do, please identify by what authority you achieved that role
and position and I will stand corrected.
Ransom
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not the opinion of the majority of observers of the case.
Deception on this scale -- frauds and scams -- are utterly common. Scientific
revolutions like this are very rare, especially from someone like Rossi.
Perhaps. But I think we should refrain from speaking on behalf of most
observers (or scientists, or physicists) until a systematic poll is carried out.
That's not necessary. A lot of people have seen these claims now. If a
majority of observers felt that the "likely explanation at this point is that
there's could be some new science to be worked out", there would be an epidemic
growth of interest; a stampede like in 1989, to mix the metaphor. That has not
happened.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5869 - Release Date: 05/30/13
