At 02:06 AM 7/9/2012, noone noone wrote:
He is not a conman because his technology has been tested too many
times by too many people.
Brilliant demonstration of how some will confidently state as truth
what they don't know, and then use what they have made up -- or have
believed from others, to draw "logical conclusions."
If the premise (tested "too many times by too many" people" were so,
i.e, reliably known, the conclusion would still not be *certain,*
since a skilled con artist can indeed fool many people many times,
but it would be reasonable. We routinely rely upon this standard. If
"too many" is a large number, we will also routinely consider the
conclusion certain.
Problem is, if there were *one* independent test, by one reliable
person, we don't know about it or have any reliable report of it. Not
to mention many tests and many people.
"Demonstration" is perhaps being confused with "test," here. A
"demonstration" is not generally independent, even if a witness to it
is independent and reliable. Appearances in a demonstration can
easily be manipulated -- or can simply be misleading. The kind of
test that allows us to move beyond suspicions of systematic error or
fraud is *independent.*
It is possible to have an independent test of a black box without
knowing the contents of the box, so secrecy, per se, isn't an
obstacle to independent testing.
It is even possible to have a somewhat less reliable independent test
by conducting a test, where the testing itself is under the control
of the independent tester, with the original claimant observing and
able to stop the test, but we don't even have that *except apparently
for a test which Rossi interrupted," if I'm getting the drift of the
NASA rumors accurately.
At worst, he is a paranoid business man due to having very real
enemies. If I were in his situation I would be paranoid too.
That's not "at worst." That's a failure of imagination.
Again, what this appears to be is a sympathetic projection, "I'd be
paranoid too...."
"Paranoid" does not merely mean "cautious." It means "Exhibiting or
characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others."
Paranoia is not caused by having enemies. It is caused by a
world-view that defines the world as a hostile place, with dangers
lurking under every interaction. It is not rational fear and distrust.
Our anonymous commentator may be afraid of writing under a real or
known name. That may not be disconnected with how s/he is commenting!
Sympathy with paranoia (beyond the compassion we have for anyone
suffering from psychopathology), a belief that such paranois is
"right," or "healthy," would be itself a symptom of paranoia.
(However, there are real-world situations where writing under a real
name can cause harm, I'm not claiming that noone noone is actually
paranoid, only that the writing in this case could be consistent with that.)
Paranoia is not independent from "con artist," because person may
become a con artist as a compensation for paranoia.
"They are all out to get me, so I'll do *this* to protect myself.
They would certainly lie to attack me, so it's perfectly okay for me
to lie. They are not going to treat me fairly, so I'll do what I need
to do to get what I need, and their lies justify mine. It's really
their fault."
As far as I can tell, none of us know what the present truth is with
Rossi. We only have appearances.
