At 12:03 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Ooops, overlooked something in your message.
On 11-06-19 11:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
3. The second test with liquid phase flow calorimetry confirmed
that the first test was right
No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented.
Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past
each other. Jed means "confirmed for Levi and Rossi," Stephen means
"didn't confirm for the rest of us." Basically, "confirmed" is an
interpretation, not a fact. Ever. Since it is meaning supplied, who
supplies the meaning is crucial.
And, of course, if anyone considers Levi's testimony adequate, it
confirmed it for them....
Personally, I consider Levi's testimony adequate to establish a
rebuttable presumption that the effect is real. But there are lots of
ways for this to go south. I've mentioned some before. Based on
Levi's testimony, I'd invest a modest amount in this, should there be
an opportunity, I'd place a bet on it, so to speak, but that would
depend on the offered odds! I would not advise investing a few
hundred million dollars on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony
of Rossi and Levi. Clear about where I stand?
It was viewed, in private, by exactly the people whose earlier
results I'm suspicious of, and they told us everything is fine, don't worry.
You are repeating the obvious. Stephen.
That's like a poker game where nobody has to show their cards, they
just state what they have and everyone believes them. The "honor
system" isn't used in poker, and it doesn't get you very far in
science, either.
But this isn't science. You want to do science, Stephen, you'll have
to actually get your hands dirty, most likely. Very little of it is
done by yakking on a mailing list.
"Science" doesn't give a hoot about whether or not Rossi is honorable
or not. Yes, if we have reason to doubt the testimony of someone, we
may deprecate it, but the error would be in assuming that this is a
proof of falsehood. It is not. Not ever. Otherwise we enter the
territory of paradox.
This isn't a "game where nobody has to show their cards." First of
all, Stephen, who's playing the game? How is it defined who wins?
What's the game being played?
From my perspective, different players may be playing different
games. Rossi is not playing the game of "science," that's obvious. He
seems to be playing a number of games, the most obvious of which he
wins if he makes a pile of money. And what you think of him, and what
I think of him, has *nothing* to do with his game.
He's pretty explicit about this, so, in that sense, he's quite
honest. If he's a fraud, faking all this, it's another story. I
rather doubt it, but I do know history, and it's happened before.
Inventor believes he is *close* to a commercial application, but
needs more money to finish up the work. So, to raise the money, he
fudges a demonstration, he imagines it will be harmless.
If he was right, and if he's able to remedy the defects, he would be,
perhaps, vindicated. But it has happened that the defect wasn't
remediable, and the fraud was -- sometimes -- exposed. Sometimes the
inventor died and everyone was left wondering what the hell happened.
And there are, then, endless possibilities for conspiracy theories, etc....
I don't think that will be the end here, because NiH is being
intensively investigated now, that's been one of Rossi's genuine
accomplishments. Still, if his "secret catalyst" turns out to be
essential and is not independently discovered, there could be a
problem. I'm hoping that there has been enough disclosure of his
process that, should something happen to him, it will come out, but I
have no idea if this is the case.
