On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
Jed:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
potential misperception
Cude:
Why do you bother to respond when you post replies like that.
The result of the paper is different than the paper? Come now, the result
of the paper is a component of the paper, as a component, if it advances
knowledge, then the whole advances knowledge. Didn't you take logic in
your
: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
Jed:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience
It seems tha the scientific community have not slipped, but is in normal
science mode, as Thomas Kuhn explain...
if you cannot integrate the fact in the know paradigm, adjust a detail
keeping the main paradigm, then last alternative is denying facts...
when facts cannot be ignored, because you no
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. Go post that on the website. Why not?
***I tried posting 2 comments along the same vein. They have not been
released. In fact, it looks like no comments have been released for more
than a day.
As this site:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html
Someone wrote the perfect response:
One question for Mr. Guglielmi.
If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test
unethical?
That's hysterical.
I posted a few messages here, since Gugliemi
He did reply to that question. Maybe you missed it. He hasn't replied to
your messages yet.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
As this site:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html
Someone wrote the perfect response:
One
I wrote:
One question for Mr. Guglielmi.
If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test
unethical?
. . . Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my
remarks!
Ah, he did answer the first question, with a song and dance:
. . . I would consider
Jed:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is
a much more
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:
His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be
impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
potential misperception by the scientific community. . . .
10 matches
Mail list logo
