2015-03-08 16:50 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker <[email protected]>: > The standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is a > phrase that goes back to Marcello Truzzi. It has been debated here on > several different occasions. It has been used by skeptics to justify > whatever they want. To that extent, it does not seem like a very useful > heuristic.
moreover E-cat have nothing extraordinary in the sense that it is in line with a long chain of LENr experiments done with palladium hydrides, nickel hydrides, powders, heat shock experiments, as explain it is mostly used to reject anything and invert the charge of evidence when claiming incredible conspiracy to explain the results. people have to see the size of the conspiracy that have to be established to justify that LENR and E-cat is extraordinary... you have to assume thousands of fraudsters, despite no state funding bias, despite scientific societies oppositions, despite low budgets... you have to assume that Industrial heat is fooled, despite claiming two independent verifications, and continue being fooled currently... while they have deep pocket enough to just dump the company to evoid a scandal. what is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence is the fraud theory.
