Britz responded to my paper with what the editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate affair might have called a non-denial denial. Or maybe I should call it waffling. I responded to him as follows:
You wrote: Sigh, wrong once more. Britz does not believe that cold fusion does not > exist, > he is not sure whether it does or not. There is a difference. I will change the paper to say that. > I understand > that you are frustrated that I don't accept the overwhelming evidence . . . More puzzled than frustrated. As I said, all of the other electrochemists I know who have read the literature are convinced. I do not believe in science by vote but I understand the evidence itself well enough to see that they are obviously correct and you are wrong. As I said in the paper, I conclude this is a Middle Ground fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html I understand why Robert Park and people like him have been wrong all along. (In his case, last month he finally admitted it is real.) He told McKubre and me that he has never read anything about it, and that is clearly the case. His statements about it were preposterous mistakes. But I have not seen you make any serious mistakes. > , as you > see it, but don't categorise me among those who totally deny that may be a > new > phenomenon. I do believe there may well be. That sounds like waffling. You are "not sure" but "it may well be" true. It seems odd that you cannot make up your mind. Perhaps you should clarify that. If you will summarize your views again in few sentences I will quote you verbatim. (Or I will just quote these two sentences.) You could write a whole paper which I would be happy to upload, but it does not seem important. A few sentences or a paragraph will do, I think. We do not need to beat this subject to death. It does not matter what you or I think. - Jed
