Hi all In reply to Axil Axil
The point I was making was clearly about the the lack of scientific basis of the Radio Reporter critique of a third party report that has not yet been published, so hence no basis on which to make their critique and about the use of ad homonym attacks rather than critique of testing methodology. On the matter of black box testing Rossi's pre loaded dry Ni/H reactor. That black box approach is a perfectly valid methodology in science and has been used in testing computer algorithms for decades and is the basis for the double blind tests that underpin modern medicine, I presume you are not saying that the Lancet does not engage in using scientific method? In point of fact all scientific experimental discovery is black box without exception, because until you establish effect you have no basis on which to discover cause. Kind Regards walker On 4 June 2014 16:40, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and > operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently > and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long > as possible. > > When asked :"how does it work" the builders will then ask "you tell Me". > > LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering. > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> On the matter of scepticism: >> >> No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR >> but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and >> put your eye to the telescope. >> >> For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been >> published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. >> >> For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, >> is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. >> >> If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party >> test report: >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 >> >> and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it >> at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main >> stream media as these and others did: >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ >> >> >> http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ >> >> >> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says >> >> Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific >> scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or >> critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence >> that the reporter is engaged in religion not science. >> >> Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third >> Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first >> Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the >> fundamental principles of the scientific method: >> >> In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on >> empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of >> reasoning. >> >> This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report >> are engaged in religion not science. >> >> The Experiment is king. >> >> To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and >> put your eye to the telescope. >> >> Kind Regards walker >> > >
