Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> He [Levi] emphasizes that the experiment must be carefully > >> prepared with a very strict protocol to avoid any doubt. > >> > > And implies that there needs to be a further replication. If he's so > convinced, why the need for further testing? > There is always a need for further testing. Seriously. Getting back to my favorite example, the Wrights proved they could stagger off the ground and barely fly in a semi-controlled fashion in December 1903. In 1904 they proved they could do it again sometimes, but often they proved only that they could crash spectacularly or that in hot weather with low air pressure they could not fly. It took more tests to prove to non-expert observers that the first flight was not a fluke or a carnival stunt. (The Wrights themselves were expert enough to judge the first 4 flight tests on Dec. 17 as complete success, but they were the only experts in the world on that day.) In the case of Rossi, many loopy skeptical objections have been raised, but one or two plausible ideas that might explain away the results have been proposed. It would be good to disprove these objections by doing a long run. We are not accusing Rossi of being dishonest by asking for something like a 10-hour run. That is just dotting the i and crossing the t. > Again, this sounds like future tense -- Levi thinks this still needs to > be verified. At least, that's how I read this. > Well . . . Maybe he is just talking the way a careful academic scientist talks. Or maybe he thinks, as I do, that this is such an astounding breakthrough it calls for additional verification. It does NOT call for "extraordinary proof" as skeptics love to say (quote the "Cosmos" TV series). More ordinary proof is fine. Rossi told me that Levi et al. are doing additional tests. That's good. They may not report on them for some time. I see no need to rush. > No, not in the least. His statements are thoroughly hedged. He's > obviously not accusing Rossi of anything, but he sure doesn't sound > "totally convinced" to me. > I think that he and other observers who have seen the test are convinced, but you have to calibrate his way of talking. Academic scientists tend to hedge everything they say so much it sometimes sounds as if they lack confidence. It is a style of speaking. You don't say "I am sure of X." You put it in the passive voice and wrap it in semantic cotton wool: "strong indications with reliable instrumentation that give a reliable approximation within the known error bounds that X is highly probable . . ." - Jed
