Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to > erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible > as the proposition that the information is correct. > Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the researchers are pretending? As my contact put it, "I know a laboratory when I see one." If you sincerely believe this scenario is possible you have a vivid imagination and you have been reading too many pulp thrillers. You should not call yourself a "skeptic" if you believe such improbabilities. This is like asserting that Mizuno's cell was actually stone cold and he only thought it was too hot to touch. The bucket was leaking but he did not notice the floor was wet, so he filled it up every morning, and thought the water was evaporating. Such implausible notions are not serious hypotheses, and they are not worth considering. Perhaps when you say people made "inadequate observations and jumped to conclusions" you meant the Defkalion researchers did. After all, we are talking about their conclusions, which you can read at their website. My contact is only confirming their conclusions. He did not make them. If that is what you mean, you are suggesting that a large group of professional scientists might make inadequate observations and jump to conclusions continuously for years, without ever discovering their mistakes. That is not possible. The scientific method works. Engineering and instruments work. - Jed
