Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ockham be damned ! Don’t forget that appeals to “parsimony” were used by > skeptics to argue the wrong side of many past issues - against DNA for > instance, as the carrier of genetic information. . . . > It is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics. ". . . more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." -- Cpt. Barbossa Many pernicious notions masquerading as rules of science circulate. The one I hate most is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." NO! No, no, no, no, NO. They require ordinary proof. Textbook proof, from off the shelf, standard, conventional instruments. There are many problems with that idea, enumerated by Melich and me. I published that here before. Here is one that we did not list: When you go about devising "extraordinary" proof, you design extraordinary equipment, such as custom built calorimeters far more sensitive or sophisticated than the measurements call for. This does not enhance believability. On the contrary, it reduces it. People do not understand how your super-calorimeter works, and they do not trust it because it is custom designed, and one of a kind. Over-engineered instruments also make people think the measurement is much harder than it is. They look at McKubre's thermocouples, which cost thousands of dollars and measure to ~0.001 deg C (as I recall) and they say things like: "Levi will have to use similar thermocouples before we believe the surface temperature of the reactor is correct." If Levi et al. were to return to Rossi's place with some kind super-deluxe custom watt meter designed by a committee of skeptics to answer every possible imaginary objection, that instrument would be unwieldy. No one would trust it, least of all me. I would prefer they bring an off-the-shelf top-notch industrial meter such as any power company engineer uses. They should ask the experts at Elforsk what meter they recommend. They should ignore any suggestions from astrophysicists or so-called "skeptics" Here is something for people who think Levi should take advice from theoretical astrophysicists such as Ethan Siegel. Imagine you have two new construction houses, freshly built and wired up to code, one by an electrician -- any electrician -- and the other by Prof. Siegel. Your job is to step into the house, turn on the main breaker, and turn on the lights. Which would you feel more confidence in? Hmmmmm . . .? Okay, perhaps Prof. Siegel has some practical abilities. However, suppose the house was wired by a *committee* of astrophysicists. I can just about guarantee it would burn down. Now, before you say, "yeah, well, electrochemists and chemists have no practical skills either!" consider this: Ed Storms did, in fact, wire up new construction. His own house. It passed code. Tadahiko Mizuno single-handedly maintained a larger fraction of Japan's cold war nuclear bomb radiation detection equipment, installed on the roof of Hokkaido U. It dates back to the 1960s and it was used to detect the North Korean bomb tests. John Bockris wrote the book on practical, hands-on electrochemistry. Most experimentalists are way ahead of theoreticians. However, in the case of the upcoming Levi tests, I would still leave the choice of instruments up to an experienced power company engineer. - Jed
