Joshua Cude <> wrote:

> 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.

No, it isn't hard, but they are not "neglecting" the issue. They are unaware
of the fact that you and others suspect that the pump may be a problem. No
one has communicated this to them, as far as I know. They have no reason to
tell you the exact pump model. Let me explain.

There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight scale,
and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt the
flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving the
goalposts to evade the issue.  Even if someone were to give you the model
number, you would demand proof they are not lying or that it really was the
model. Since you do not trust they can read a weight scale, why should you
trust they will give you the right model number?

You demand they use a bigger reservoir, enough to last 1 hour. Suppose they
do? You will then demand a 2-hour reservoir. Then you will demand proof that
there is not a block of glass or something in the reservoir taking up space,
making the capacity look bigger than it is. Then you will demand something
else, and something else after that. Skeptics can play this game
indefinitely, moving the goalposts down the field, outside the stadium, and
into the next county.

If you abandon reasonable, scientific standards and declare that people
cannot be depended upon to read a weight scale, that is tantamount to saying
you not trust these people. You think they not even minimally competent to
do a grade-school level task. Or you think they are dishonest. Nothing they
can do or say will convince you of anything. In that case, you are not
serious, and they are justified in ignoring your demands. So am I, and that
is what I intend to do.

- Jed

Reply via email to