I wrote:
Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past
each other. Jed means "confirmed for Levi and Rossi," . . .
That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word
for it, this is not proof for you.
I should have said: this is not CONFIRMATION for you.
The reason this is confirmation is because they employed a different
method: liquid state flow. In some ways that is easier and more
reliable. I do not think there is any chance they made a significant
error, so if the report is false, that can only be because they lied.
That's plausible, but I find it so unlikely, I dismiss it from serious
consideration. Too many people have seen this effect in too many places
for this to be a lie.
However, just because I am sure that Levi et al. are not lying, that is
no reason why Stephen Lawrence should believe them.
The reports of these tests have been inadequate. I wish that better
reports were available. The tests themselves have some significant
deficiencies in my opinion. They could be improved with better
computerized data collection and redundant instruments. It is reasonable
that some people are not fully convinced by inadequate reports of
second-rate calorimetry. It is also reasonable that other people,
including me, are convinced. This is partly a judgment call, and partly
a matter of speculating about people's personalities and motivations. In
such things there can be honest disagreements. This is not a math
equation proof, with a single, irrefutable answer.
Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this
test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of
information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results.
Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more
skeptical than I am. That's reasonable.
- Jed
