Gotta run. I'll catch up in 3 or 4 days. Don't take my absence as a

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <> wrote:

> Joshua Cude <> wrote:
>> Well, it is if an experiment can be easily designed to make such
>> suspicions impossible. As would be the case here, if the claims were true.
> Seriously, It is nearly impossible to design a demonstration that will
> eliminate all suspicions, in all people. Some people, such as Robert Park,
> simply will not believe a claim, no matter how much evidence you present.
> Even if Park were to attend a first-rate demonstration of the Rossi device,
> one that addresses all of the issues raised here, he would refuse to believe
> it. He would make up other objections. I mean it when I say that people can
> make up unlimited numbers of reasons to dismiss a finding.
> The scientific method demands that an arbitrary limit be placed on
> objections. It is a matter of opinion how much proof is needed, and how many
> objections should be met, but you cannot leave the question undecided
> indefinitely. Do that, and no question will be settled, nothing will ever be
> ready for the textbooks, and research will not proceed to the next step. I
> am not saying that Rossi has met that limit. He is far from it! But you
> cannot keep moving the goalposts and asking for more and more proof, and is
> your standard is: "Are the skeptics satisfied? Does anyone still have
> doubts?" then you will keep moving the goalposts indefinitely.
> Many people still dispute special relativity. That's fine. They have every
> right to do that. But we should not expect physicists to keep repeating
> experiments that demonstrate the effect of gravity on time, for instance,
> just to satisfy these skeptics. The physicists have other things to do.
> Cold fusion researchers should not be forced to do boil off experiments
> again and again just because the latest crop of nitwits in Wikipedia are
> unaware of the steps taken to ensure that unboiled water did not leave the
> cells at Toyota and the French AEC.
> Just to clarify, Stephen Lawrence is correct. I meant you do not have to
> trust Rossi. You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other
> people. They might be conspiring together to fool us. If they can keep a
> secret, it would be easy for them to fool us. I have no actual proof that
> the demonstration even took place. The video might have been staged, and the
> data invented out of whole cloth. If you think that Levi, Celani and the
> others might do such a thing, then you have no reason to believe any of this
> is true. I doubt they would, because it would be out of character, and there
> does not seem to be a motive.
> - Jed

Reply via email to