On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, francis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:20: *Joshua Cude wrote***** > > [snip] Are you suggesting that because of the billions gambled on fusion > research,**** > > that money should also be invested in perpetual motion claims? [/snip]**** > > ** ** > > Joshua,**** > > Perpetual motion and violation of COE arguments are fallacious arguments > used by skeptics**** > > To say you are only allowed to consider “known” types of energy. [...] > You're missing the point of the argument. I agree that cold fusion is more respectable than perpetual motion claims. That's the point of drawing the parallel. If you believed that perpetual motion was as respectable as CF, the argument would be pointless. The argument I was countering had nothing to do with all those things you brought up. It simply said that if billions can be spent on a technique that has not shown practical success, then funding should be made available to cold fusion, which claims to have practical success. But that argument applies identically to perpetual motion claims, and if we agree that perpetual motion claims do not deserve funding, then the argument for funding cold fusion is rendered impotent. To get funding for CF, the claims have to be made credible, as you tried to do. Pointing to areas of science that are credible and that have funding do not help its case.
