At 08:54 AM 2/22/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>From: Joshua Cude
>> From Lomax:

>> This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers
>> who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium
>>  deuteride.

> The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments,
> and they never get better. They can't come up with one that captures
> the attention of mainstream. They can't make an isolated device that
> generates heat. In fact, consistent with other pathological science,
>  the size of the effect (with the exception of the dubious Rossi device)
> has become smaller over the years. Science doesn't work that way.
> Pathological science does.

I've read enuf...

yeah, I agree.

Confident assertion of what is blatantly false. And more, I went into it in detail, unfortunately.

Now, I know why I have not wanted to dwell too much on this particular
thread. Life's too short. I try to dispense what limited resources I have
left in my life wisely.

Aw, you are entirely too sensible.

Mr. Lomax: There's an old saying. I'm sure you've heard of it. Do not cast
pearls before swine.

Yeah, I know the saying. I don't agree with thinking of people, from shallow evidence, as swine.

I prefer to first hear some snorts, see some wallowing in the mud, maybe some very strange lipstick, you know, pig stuff. Besides, I think pigs are cool. I just don't lay pearls before them. They don't know what to do with them.

But others do, sometimes. Nevertheless, I wasted far too much time on this today and yesterday. I was wrong. I saw sufficient cogent argument there that I thought we'd caught that rare bird in CF discussions, a genuine skeptic. Not one-o-them pseudos.

Mr. Cude: Relying on subjective circular reasoning to validate your POV is
no way to go through life, win friends and influence people. But by all
means, continue to hug your cactus.

My two cents.

Mr Cude will doubtless continue to believe that his arguments are cogent and that anyone rejecting it is simply too attached to recognize True Brilliance, simple Sober Prudence, Common Sense, and Stable and Proper Belief in Established Scientific Consensus.

Which means, of course, What I Believe.

My remaining puzzle is Who is This Guy? I know a Joshua, real name, who might write like him. Style seemed a little different, but these kids, grad students, generally, do grow up and mature. Maybe. The line of argument was generally different, so I'm not placing bets on that ID.

Joshua Cude's main argument is new, in fact, I've never heard the skeptical position stated quite like that. There is often a tinge of it, some use of the lack of the Killer Obvious Unquestionable Demo, for under $99.50, with Idiot-Proof Instructions, postpaid, as if it were a scientific proof of some kind, but never so explicitly -- since is it so obviously flawed.

I have a sense of serious familiarity with CF history, combined with some very strange lacunae, which might simply represent trolling. I.e., he's stating stuff he knows to be false, or certainly very shaky, just to get a reaction. Maybe he's just a very fast study, and has done a Whole Lot of Reading this last month.

Which would kinda contradict his stated position: this is totally bogus, not worth the time of day.

Some mysteries may never be solved. If he had his way, cold fusion would be one of those. He does not want it solved, he's really uninterested in what the Great Artifact might be, because he wants what will make it moot.... so that he doesn't have to think, weigh, investigate, consider contradictory evidence, seek the harmonizing reality under it all. You know, real science, that does this with the entire lab notebook.

Reply via email to