On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>  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. . . .
>>
>
> In this case, I think we need to start drawing some limits to some
> objections. Skeptical arguments must meet the same level of rigor as any
> other. I think concerns about the flow rate should be dismissed. I don't
> care about pump specifications someone found on the Internet. The methods
> Levi et al. used to measure flow are rock solid and it is silly to dispute
> them.
>
>
It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy
to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they
neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes.

But they used less than 20 L of water, and 20 L water containers are
commonplace. Wouldn't it have been easy to simply use that, without any
refilling, so at the end of the experiment, the total water through the
system could be estimated with a simple photo?

Reply via email to