Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Actually it is *postlogical thinking * http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html Galantini is a very local authorithy, and university professors are not necessarily experts in steam. Rossi is against the idea of measuring the ENTHALPY of steam,(as Jed also suggest via sparging) he has not published my message saying this. He again says that an output per input ratio of 6 will be guaranteed, taking in account that 1 kW electric = 3 kW thermic this is a low value. Serious doubts are re not the functionality but the* readiness* of the E-cat. Hopefully the Defkalion press conference will inject some optimism in this issue. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If that's not appealing to an authority then I don't know the meaning of simple English sentences. You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of fallacious appeal to authority. OK, your point. I said appeal to authority, you said fallacious appeal to authority ... what I'm talking about is neither fallacious, nor a logical fallacy, it's merely not a convincing proof of anything. It is commonly used by people who either have no actual evidence to bolster their position, or have sufficiently limited knowledge that they can't argue the position themselves. In either case the weight of the argument depends vitally on the degree to which the target of the appeal really is an authority, because there is nothing else on which to base it. Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase appeal to authority is actually used . . . Not when you are discussion formal logic. , and is far narrower than makes sense. No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. True. And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... g In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple appeal to authority, which, by itself, can never prove anything. A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and everybody jumps. In science, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and the usual response is, What was his reasoning, and what's his data? My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. True. And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... g It is recursive. Another situation in which a properly framed appeal to authority is acceptable, and often used, is in court testimony or in a Congressional Investigation. In a jury trial, it is enough to say that Prof. So-and-so, an expert in thus and such, and therefore his testimony should be admissible. The prof.'s reasons might be too complicated to explain to the jury, so the testimony might include only the reasons (or opinions, really) with no scientific backing, but it is still legitimate. As I said, it is supporting evidence, not proof. - Jed
[Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
As everyone here knows, Steve Krivit wrote a report about a visit to Rossi's factory in Bologna: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/16/preliminary-report-of-interviews-with-e-cat-trio-rossi-focardi-and-levi/ On one hand, I thought this report was pretty good, but on the other hand I can well understand why it upset Rossi and Levi. This is unfortunate. I was hoping this visit would help clarify the situation, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. I think this is partly a misunderstand about the nature and purposes of these tests. Krivit is looking for one thing (legitimately) but Rossi is offering another (also legitimate). Krivit was looking for a scientific exposition, and Rossi was offering a press briefing. Here is one key difference. Someone here said that Rossi is offering an appeal to authority. Strictly speaking, he is not. That would be a logical fallacy, called a Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Rossi is citing actual, bona fide authorities in the relevant field such as Dr. Galantini. That is a legitimate thing to do in the context of explaining an experiment to a reporter. It is not, however, a legitimate argument in a scientific exposition at an academic conference, for example. In other words, Krivit saw himself acting as a scientific critic (which he did, ably) but Rossi saw him as a reporter. A reporter will be satisfied when he is told that Professor X is an expert in wet or dry steam; a scientific critic will want to see the data. Krivit makes an important point: detailed data has not been published. I was expecting it would beby now. When the tests were done earlier this year, Levi, and later Essen and Kullander published quick, preliminary reports. I heard they were planning to publish longer, more formal papers later. Maybe they are still working on them. The initial reports were pretty good. They were a reasonable first approximation -- the kind of thing you expect someone to write a few days after a test. I think anyone would agree with Krivit that more data is called for. It seems that he asked Levi for more data and this led to a dispute, and hard feelings, which is a real shame. I remarked briefly during the visit, I hope Rossi allows Krivit to make independent measurements. I gather that was not on the agenda, and it was not the purpose of the visit. Again, that is a shame. Let me explain something about that remark. This is about an event I have not discussed. Strictly speaking it is a non-event. It did not happen, and it is of no importance. A couple of months ago, Rossi cordially invited me to visit the factory in Bologna. I was excited and pleased, naturally. I immediately responded saying I would be thrilled, and I would like to bring several thermometers, a graduated cylinder, I would like to do a flow test, a test sparging the steam with a 1 m hose, and so on, and so forth. Anyone who knows me will know that I am better at measuring temperatures than asking questions or interviewing people. Rossi came back and said (in effect): no, that is not what I had mind. I meant you can come and observe the machine, and we will talk about it. In other words, he offered the kind of exposition and discussion that he gave to Steve Krivit. I thought about that for a while. But I told him that I am not cut out for that sort of thing, and I cannot see traveling all the way to Italy and not measuring the flow rate, inlet temperature, outlet temperature, mixing, and on and on. The only reason I would go is to do calorimetry. Rossi said he did not have time to do any more tests, and he feels the professors have already done enough calorimetry, and he did not want any more tests before the 1 MW demonstration. I said: naturally you are very busy; a test is time consuming and difficult. I would not want you to have take extra time out of your work just so that I can make measurements. We agreed that this is not the right time for a visit. It was a friendly discussion. The point is, I was hoping that I might help resolve some of these issues. A test sparging the steam is crude but I am confident that if it is done correctly it would help clarify the wet versus dry steam issue. To do it correctly you need a short hose, and you first confirm that the steam is not visible. This is the sort of thing I did at Hydrodynamics. I am obviously nowhere near as qualified as an expert such as Galantini! I would never, ever, challenge his authority in this matter. I never teach grandma how to suck eggs (as the expression goes). I can see why Krivit's comments rubbed Rossi the wrong way. Krivit seemed to be lecturing experts about wet and dry steam, which is bad form. It is effrontery. I *totally* understand why Rossi felt he does not need me to do this, and he does not have time for tests. On the other hand I do have significant experience doing this sort of thing with Gene Mallove. I am fanatical about
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If that's not appealing to an authority then I don't know the meaning of simple English sentences. You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of fallacious appeal to authority. Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase appeal to authority is actually used . . . Not when you are discussion formal logic. , and is far narrower than makes sense. No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple appeal to authority, which, by itself, can never prove anything. A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and everybody jumps. In science, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and the usual response is, What was his reasoning, and what's his data? My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit's report and the unfortunate situation in Bologna
On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: If that's not appealing to an authority then I don't know the meaning of simple English sentences. You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily language often mean something different from what they do in a specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of fallacious appeal to authority. OK, your point. I said appeal to authority, you said fallacious appeal to authority ... what I'm talking about is neither fallacious, nor a logical fallacy, it's merely not a convincing proof of anything. It is commonly used by people who either have no actual evidence to bolster their position, or have sufficiently limited knowledge that they can't argue the position themselves. In either case the weight of the argument depends vitally on the degree to which the target of the appeal really is an authority, because there is nothing else on which to base it. Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said -- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority. That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim. Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase appeal to authority is actually used . . . Not when you are discussion formal logic. , and is far narrower than makes sense. No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you know better than philosophers and logicians. True. And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... g In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam ... but the evidence used by that authority has never been revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple appeal to authority, which, by itself, can never prove anything. A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything, but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I have no objection. My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C. I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments, not to hear what people have to say. This is the difference between science, and everything else: In religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and everybody jumps. In science, you can say Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP! and the usual response is, What was his reasoning, and what's his data? My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply. What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other. - Jed
