At 06:26 PM 7/12/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from
Uppsala University, and Hanno Essén, with the
Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed
Rossiâs claimed technology in a news story on
Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or inspected
the device. Essén is the chairman of the
Swedish Skeptics Association, a nonprofit
education group well-known in academic circles.
Krivit's statement is astounding. It is either
terribly confused or an outrageous lie. What could he be thinking?!?
Krivit thinks?
Seriously, Krivit is just doing what Krivit has
long done: do some kind of investigation, form an
opinion, then report from the perspective of that
opinion. It can then affect his wording and what
he says in ways that he might not notice, since he believes his own story.
Jed, it's not "terribly confused," it is just a
"possible" error. Lots of people have made
mistakes about Rossi. It's a set-up for making mistakes!
Nevertheless, this report from Kullander and
Essen could be interpreted quite in line with what Krivit is claiming:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3111124.ece
The issue would be whether or not this report was an "endorsement."
Some people might claim that E&K did not do
adequate testing, or that their methods were not
good enough to support their conclusions. That
is a legitimate difference of opinion. But it is
clear that they themselves think these tests are
sufficient to support the level of endorsement
they made in NyTeknik. It is 100% clear that
they did the tests first, then endorsed. Their
endorsement was not unconditional. They left
plenty of wiggle room for themselves in case
Rossi turns out to be wrong. As they should; as any academic scientist would.
What I see is Kullander and Essen believing what
they were told, and reporting it as fact. It's
quite possible that they hedged their comments,
but Lewan didn't report that. The February 23
article cited can be seen as showing
"endorsement" prior to their visit March 29.
Scientists are not accustomed to thinking someone
might be telling them things that are grossly
distorted. So, for example, the factory is
reported as a fact, without attribution, "according to...."
I'm puzzled by something, by the behavior of
Kullander, Essen, and Lewen. There have been some
serious objections to their prior reports, such
as the apparent assumption that a relative
humidity meter can be used to measure steam
quality, and the neglect of the possibility that
water overflow would be occurring, could actually
be expected -- unless some feedback mechanism is
operating, which involves varying power to
exactly match the allegedly constant water flow
-- but they have not responded or clarified their
observations or possible errors.
The silence of Kullander and Essen is then used
by Rossi, who is claiming that these "university
professors" have validated his work.
Are they being silent? Or have I just missed more recent comments?
