1. Most of them are positive. ***Yeah, probably. But that's not really quite enough for the average rational skeptic. I don't expect skeptopatholes to accept it, but rational people expect high signal/noise evidence.
2. Many others are not reported. ***That's an invalid argument from silence. 3. There have been plenty of others after that. ***I agree, but where are they? Where is the definitive list of replications? 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. ***Jed, I can't find your article on lenr-canr.org that outlines the difference between pseudoscience and real science results. In effect, it says that pseudosciences like polywater were replicated less than about 10 times. 1 positive result doesn't cut it. 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? ***Ordinary skeptics care. They watch interactions between "true believers" and "skeptopaths" and usually try to split Solomon's baby, but in this case it means they land on the side of "believers", so it makes them uncomfortable. They want definitive evidence, even if it's only 153 peer-reviewed replications. It makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. ***It makes a difference to those people who are attracted to the field by recent buzz, look into it and find themselves on ecatnews.com discussions or elsewhere. They are interested but skeptical. Skeptopaths like Joshua Cude use their wiles to turn such interested folk. On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joshua Cude managed to dismantle the claim of 14,720 replications. >> >> http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=14#comment-76884 >> >> popeye Reply >> <http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=14&replytocom=76873#respond> >> >> December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm >> >> Kevmo wrote: >> >> JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times… >> >> Your link for this doesn’t work, but I found the article (Front. Phys. >> China (2007) 1: 96―102 ). And in it is given a table claiming 14,720 as an >> “estimated number of experiments performed”. Not positive results, let >> alone replications of anything specified. . . . >> > 1. Most of them are positive. > > 2. Many others are not reported. > > 3. There have been plenty of others after that. > > 4. Even 1 positive result proves beyond question that Cude is full of shit. > > 5. This entire discussion is ridiculous. Who cares exactly how many? It > makes no difference. 14,000 or 7,000 or 700 would be more than enough to > prove it is real, and that -- in turn -- proves that Cude is wrong. > > - Jed > >
