On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jed,
You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and
think there are still many unknowns.
For the last time:
I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.
You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU
HAVE NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge
how much is unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.
Actually it isn't correct that we in the peanut gallery have no way to
judge anything. Based solely on what we in this group know of you, Jed,
and your reputation, and Rossi, and his reputation, and the milieu in
which this all took place, it's not hard to compare the /assumptions/
which need to be made in order to conclude either that you are telling
the truth and you are correct that Rossi's invention is a dead issue, or
that Rossi is correct and you are mistaken and/or lying.
There would seem to be far fewer unlikely assumptions required in order
to conclude that you're right and Rossi is wrong.
Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively
correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members
and general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is /very probably/
correct in his assertions about Rossi, and Rossi's devices /very
probably/ do not work. (And a high probability of truth is the best we
can hope for in any case.)
I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to
assume they failed in this instance BUT actually work in general
requires another bunch of rather unlikely looking assumptions to explain
the unexpected failure, versus the single, rather simpler assumption
that Rossi cheats, and so all of his successful test results to date
have been bogus.
