On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy, it is as if someone
went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720
hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were
the result of error. It is exceedingly small.
No. That would be the result if there were no negative results in between.
If you throw N dice, the
No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy, it is as if someone
went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720
hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were
misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you want to establish
that the
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis . . .
There is no need for these sorts of arguments. They are the icing on the
cake. The level of reproducibility in cold fusion is so high that in any
other field of science or
As a pragmatic skeptic, I'm looking for a cold fusion anomaly of any kind
that has been described in exhaustive detail and which Believer's and
Agnostics have discussed throughly and have been unable to discount -- I
submit that the paper that Jed Rothwell cites in this thread is very sparse
on
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013, Joshua Cude wrote:
I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b,
so
I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
replies over on
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I would not call Cude articulate.
How could you. You said yourself, you don't read what I write. It would be
presumptuous to give an opinion about something you haven't read.
As McKubre often says, I could do a
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
Not at all. You can see many harsh
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
From reading the exchanges here and on other forums, I have the
impression (my 'verdict') that the evidence for lenr is
either:
anecdotal ('all the water boiled out of the
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The existing level of good research almost certainly proves than nuclear
reactions can occur at low temperature.
No. That's manifestly wrong. If it almost certainly proves it, then experts
who examine it would say that.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
I wrote an entire book in order to place the evidence in one place and to
show how it relates to the claims.
In 2007. The world's view was not changed by it, and it's obvious why. The
evidence as reported in your book
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I think it is rude for him not to address substantive points raised by
others, such as McKubre Fig. 1.
I did. Twice. I know it's easier for you to ignore what I write, and then
attribute made-up arguments to me you
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I think many people have expressed highly skeptical view of BLP, Rossi
and others here. I think most of this skepticism is justified!
And yet you have said: Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any
previous
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
Their method is assertion rather than trying to advance
mutual understanding of the basic facts to be understood: there are no
convincing experiments, there is zero credible evidence, every experimental
result lies
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
To be concrete, I think the issue is primarily one about attention to
detail and to questions of burden of evidence. It's fine to be skeptical
of the tritium evidence, for example. But if one is going to argue against
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real?
Everyone will have a different answer. A knowledgeable person will want to
look at the papers, and evaluate the skills of the researchers, the choice
of
I wrote:
A brand new type of measurement, or one made with an experimental new type
of instrument, may be open to question.
That was the situation with polywater. That is why it took a couple of
years to determine it was caused by contamination. The results were very
close the limits of
I would say a proper debunking of polywater requires more than detecting
the presence of contaminants.
The concentrations of the contaminants has to be large enough to bring
about the property changes.
Were the concentrations measured?
If the concentrations are too small then polywater could still
It is a judgement call.
***Then, since this is Bill Beaty's forum, it is up to him to come up with
the set of facts that we consider to be the watershed between debunkers and
small-s skeptics. I have posted what I consider to be the base set and
will proceed from it until Bill weighs in. Others
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread. If one
considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess heat
event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications are on
record.
That is a form of
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread. If one
considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess heat
event, then you take that
What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were the
result of error. It is exceedingly small. Far below the mathematical
definition of impossible, which is 10^-50.
That is what Joshua Cude thinks is the case.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Joshua Cude
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:53:29 -0500
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, so
I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
While I enjoy a True Believer
site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing
but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
articulate skeptics.
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
I wrote:
but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
articulate skeptics.
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
I would not call Cude articulate. As McKubre often says, I could do a
better job as a cold fusion skeptic than
I think we need to consider two types of skeptics. If a person does
not even believe the validity of the subject being discussed, what can
that skeptic contribute. If CF is not real, what is the point of
discussing why or how it works? The second kind of skeptics works by
considering the
Believers without Skeptics are blandly blind.
Skeptics without Believers are blindly sterile.
The forever fecund spontaneous creativity of the present moment is not
bound in the least by any binding limits of spaces, times, causalities,
separate identities, perceptions, concepts, emotions,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:12:56AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
While I enjoy a True Believer
site as much as anyone, after a while it is like eating nothing
but dessert - you need some meat and potatoes in the form of
articulate skeptics.
If
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:12:56 -0400
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
I don't know very much about this business and I can not debate it,
but I consider myself to be like a juror listening to the
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
Not at all. You can see many harsh critiques of cold fusion theory and
experiments here in recent weeks, such as the
I second the summary observations by Vorl Bek:
Cude's demeanor was consistently polite; the several people he
was up against were rather less polite in many instances, and one
of them was downright churlish.
None of them seemed to me to be as convincing as Cude was.
From reading the exchanges
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
From reading the exchanges here and on other forums, I have the
impression (my 'verdict') that the evidence for lenr is
either:
anecdotal ('all the water boiled out of the bucket!';'there
was a terrific explosion!' - that sort of report), but that the
There is plenty of room to be skeptical that LENR will ever get to market.
Cude was correct on that point. I think that airing alternative viewpoints
on the subject of what it takes for commercialization can be quite
productive for the future of the field. But of course, even discussing that
is
Vorl, it is impossible to decide if CF is real based on the kind of
reasoning you give below or by listening to a discussion between Cude
and anyone else. The level of the discussion is so superficial to be
useless. I wrote an entire book in order to place the evidence in one
place and to
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
Cude's demeanor was consistently polite . . .
I disagree. I think it is rude for him not to address substantive points
raised by others, such as McKubre Fig. 1. Also, for example, he asked a
legitimate question:
In any case, my question was really why
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
There is plenty of room to be skeptical that LENR will ever get to market.
Cude was correct on that point. I think that airing alternative viewpoints
on the subject of what it takes for commercialization can be quite
productive for the future of the
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
write about it?
Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
It seems that anything (to put it politely) is on-topic here but
a critical view on
The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore,
to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've
seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and
then, THEN, after deciding something is false, going about poking every
I think many people have expressed highly skeptical view of BLP, Rossi and
others here. I think most of this skepticism is justified! -- Jed Rothwell
So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
evidence.
The claims about Toyota's successes are indeed extraordinary
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:39 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote:
The standard skepticism that any scientist should have, wishing to explore,
to look at the evidence, to experiment and refine, is , from what I've
seen, welcome here. What is not is blindly saying, THis cannot be true, and
I'd venture to make a suggestion, or request. Not to disparage or
discourage all that goes on here, but to encourage also maybe a slight veer
to the left (right?). Admittedly, I have not read anywhere near all the
papers available (and don't understand most of them very well anyway) but
It
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
We assume here that in general LENR researchers are competent overall.
One should just accept this as a ground rule. . . .
Yes. They are professionals, after all. Before they did cold fusion no one
thought they were not experts. That is not to say
ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I have not read anywhere near all the papers available (and
don't understand most of them very well anyway) but It seems like it could
be fruitful to initiate a new 'Symposium' that the experts could
occasionally contribute a piece to
.
We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
's' skeptic.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
By 'we' I mean Vortex minus debunkers. Small 's' skeptics
So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
evidence.
***It is this kind of common ground and base set of facts that we should
try to establish as a group. If anyone comes along hoping to debunk it,
they can read the base set of facts and either move on or engage with us.
On Sun, 12 May 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.
How about this part:
Note that small-s skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly
acceptable on Vortex-L. We crackpots don't want to be *completely*
self-deluding. :) The ban here is aimed at
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
's' skeptic.
It is a judgement call.
Science is objective, yet at the finest level of detail, it is a
On Sat, 11 May 2013, Joshua Cude wrote:
I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b, so
I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.
Or, just stick with the greater world of
There are a lot of opinions that can dramatically lower one's evolutionary
fitness if expressed. For example, when Moses came down with his tablets
and was, shall we say, depressed by the reception -- he asked for the
opinion of those around him and those who agreed with him were then
ordered to
OK. My apologies.
Like I said before, I came to post a review of Hagelstein's editorial,
which, although negative, I did not think violated rule 2. And then, of
course, I can't resist replying to direct responses to stuff I write, and
it spiraled outta control.
I'm not interested in an
50 matches
Mail list logo
