On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me quote the specific text from Cude that I discussed: > > "You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've > already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True > believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the > alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to > give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those > circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, > or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel > without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't > stop you from believing it happens though." > > Let's go over this one more time: > > "True believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain > the alleged observations . . ." > > Yes, because any method of deception MUST fit in with textbook physics > Sure, but that doesn't mean observers MUST know what it is. This is impossible where all the skeptical observers have is a written account of the observations. You're asking skeptics like me to model the deception, when if you followed the other threads, the paper is so bad, we can't agree on where measurements were made, and some people can't figure out that 3-phase was used. It's nonsense to talk about ordinary scientific scrutiny when that paper is all we have. Make the ecat available, and then it'll be possible to exclude tricks. There is no way in the current situation. > If you cannot simulate it, it is not "deception." It is a genuine > inexplicable anomaly. > > So, if a scientist can't explain or simulate how a magician does his tricks in a restricted and contrived context, they are genuinely magic? That's utter nonsense. Especially if the scientist is only given a written account of what the magician did. I don't know how you can write such crap. Unless "genuine inexplicable anomaly" includes the possibility of deception, in which case, I agree. > Also, you have to define this method in a way that can be falsified, > Deception can be easily falsified if access to the device is given. An isolated ecat not connected to the mains falsifies the claim that the power is coming deceptively from the mains, e.g. And you can't falsify the claim that it's cold fusion without access to the experiment either. > > ". . . .but do not hold themselves to the same standard to give an > explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those > circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation . > . ." > > YES, again, because these are genuine anomalies. > Only if you are sure there is no deception. Which in this case requires extreme naiveté. > That has been proved by replicated, high-sigma experiments. > Even if true -- and the mainstream disagrees -- it doesn't mean Rossi's experiment is valid. It's a separate claim. The true belief by many in cold fusion provides fertile soil for scams. > You do not need to show *WHY* there is heat without radiation, you only > have to show *THAT* there is 10,000 times more heat than any chemical > reaction can produce, no chemical changes, and commensurate helium. > Right. And you don't need to show how deception is executed, you only have to know the possibility is not excluded, as you yourself have admitted. It's a matter of judgement which possibility is more plausible. To most intelligent people, the possibility of deception in a case like this -- being utterly common -- is far greater than the possibility of a scientific revolution -- being rare indeed. > > Cude has made a huge mistake here. He does not understand the scientific > method. > You don't have the first clue about the scientific method. You're a computer guy, who spent the last 24 years immersed in pseudoscience, and you've dropped some of your fortune trying to prove it's right. You're desperate for vindication. But it's not coming, and you're frustrated. It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it. All the scientific progress in the last 24 years has been made by people who think cold fusion is nonsense. And cold fusion advocates have been spinning their wheels. I think the method used by the ones making progress is a better method, no matter what you call it.
