Like the Wizard in Oz, you only have to believe... On Monday, July 9, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> 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. >
