----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 12:03:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
The recent exchange between Rossi/Levi and Kirvirt has got me thinking a lot
about the role of honour in science. Even skeptics and reporters are guided by
sense of honour. What would it be like for a reputably knowledgeable fellow
such
as yourself to discover you had been duped by Rossi? Steven Krivit described
himself as not being a BJ reporter. Clearly, he exhibits a sense of honour too.
If it turns out Rossi's device works as he claims, I doubt Rossi
could have made it commercially viable without a sense of honour to weather the
criticism. So I would say a sense of honour can play a constructive role
in advancing science and exposing mistakes or frauds.
Harry
