Re: [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), such a result would change a potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may produce. He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to test the claims, and that's not possible. 2) Mankind. Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to help him do it. If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they will believer
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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 training? Whether the viewer deems it credible enough is for the viewer. You wouldn't deem a paper on this topic credible enough under any circumstances, so your opinion is hardly instructive or representative. And citing a view vocal outliers (Guglielmi) is hardly a census of the reaction. As far as benefiting mankind, waiting for Rossi to achieve a working product might (even if the report is accurate) be a long wait (in fact there is no assurances he will even succeed), but you don't need to understand the mechanism to determine if a new form of energy has been achieved. So the scientific community need not wait on the inventor. And of course for the scientific community to wait for an inventor to school them is a sad commentary on the discipline. If this report is insufficient to confirm a new source of energy the testers should be encouraged to do the tests again with modified methodology. It is certainly sufficient to raise the possibility of a new source of energy (the need to interpose a theory of fraud proves it's sufficiency) Ransom 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 by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may produce. He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to test the claims, and that's not possible. 2) Mankind. Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to help him do it. If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they will believer
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
Joshua: Your initial response was to my reply to Guglielmi's claim of an ethical violation because the paper wouldn't advance knowledge. You have now come full circle. You said he was talking about the paper not the results. Now all you are saying is that the methodology used by the testers wasn't sufficient to advance knowledge. That means Guglielmis criticism is misplaced and he should not have been talking about ethics but instead methodology. The paper could have advanced knowledge if the methodology had been as you later proposed or in many other ways. To further the point, if Rossi can, as you have mentioned a number of times, perform a demonstration that would convince the world, surely the scientific community can perform a black box test that does the same. So Guglielmi is wrong about the issue of ethics, the paper can advance scientific knowledge as I stated and the only thing that is required is a proper methodology. Of course, that raises the real issue. There is nothing scientifically wrong with the methodology used in this test. You haven't been able to scientifically criticize the output energy so the need to heat a tub of water is unnecessary and one of your many red herrings. The methodology to measure input is also acceptable unless fraud is occurring, so to be determinative, all the testers need do is tighten the input measures to assure your requirement for an isolated location (that is what you really mean). So again the issue isn't an ethical one but instead one of tightening the methodology to eliminate the concern for fraud. However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which absent fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the scientific community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is patently obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and especially for a lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a test which fails to eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be determinative, it is a level of real proof and would stand in any court of law. Further absent any real evidence of fraud the proof is actually even stronger. It clearly is sufficient to put the scientific community on notice to pay closer attention to the issues and to demand further tests which will result in a conclusive determination. Anything less from them would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy to prosecute the claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of human progress). Ransom - Original Message - From: Joshua Cude To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [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), such a result would change a potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may produce. He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to be able to test the claims, and that's not possible. 2) Mankind. Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands, it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several academic stooges to help him do it. If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that they will believer No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3184/5865 - Release Date: 05/28/13
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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 more need a PhD to be sure of the result, then they have to adapt... until then, like a turkey in the death row, they gain time with imaginary problems... standard. 2013/5/29 Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com ** Joshua: However, the idea that the scientific community can ignore results which absent fraud prove a new energy source is quite telling. It tells me the scientific community has slipped into dogma and abandoned science, which is patently obvious to a non scientist looking from the outside in and especially for a lawyer who specializes in proof and it's levels. While a test which fails to eliminate every possibility of fraud may not be determinative, it is a level of real proof and would stand in any court of law. Further absent any real evidence of fraud the proof is actually even stronger. It clearly is sufficient to put the scientific community on notice to pay closer attention to the issues and to demand further tests which will result in a conclusive determination. Anything less from them would likely be deemed negligence and I would be happy to prosecute the claim (assuming one could do so in some imaginary court of human progress). Ransom
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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.
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to 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 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 is responding. Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my remarks! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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 the test unethical if the answers to my two questions: 1) How does your paper advance knowledge? 2) Who will benefit from it? would come out as something like: 1) It doesn't; 2) Rossi and his associates. Obviously, if the test exposed a fraud the answer to question number (2) would become `Nobody´, and this would somehow mitigate the lack of ethics. Still, the answer to question (1) might be the same, and we still have to consider that these scientists did make experiments in a commercial facility and without being in control. Guglielmi is a logician in computer science. A logician in the classic academic sense; an expert in splitting hairs and chopping logic. When people like this come out of the woodwork with daft arguments I get a sense we may be making progress. This is the best they can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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 significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may produce. 2) Mankind. His analysis must assume the results are a fraud to advance his ethical charge. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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 the test unethical if the answers to my two questions: 1) How does your paper advance knowledge? 2) Who will benefit from it? would come out as something like: 1) It doesn't; 2) Rossi and his associates. Obviously, if the test exposed a fraud the answer to question number (2) would become `Nobody´, and this would somehow mitigate the lack of ethics. Still, the answer to question (1) might be the same, and we still have to consider that these scientists did make experiments in a commercial facility and without being in control. Guglielmi is a logician in computer science. A logician in the classic academic sense; an expert in splitting hairs and chopping logic. When people like this come out of the woodwork with daft arguments I get a sense we may be making progress. This is the best they can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi
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. . . . Well said. Go post that on the website. Why not? He is a strange fellow. It is almost as if he is struggling to find reasons not to investigate these claims. As if it is the responsibility of a scientist to turn away from controversy. What is he afraid of? You seldom see such clearly expressed odd sentiments. - Jed
