Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> My concern is actually rather different. > > My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in > his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry. > > And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini. > You have made a high pile of unproven suppositions here! You assume: 1. You are right, and he and the other experts are wrong. 2. You *suspect* he knows he is wrong. 3. This suspicion leads you to further suspect he secretly agrees with you. Not that he is confused or ambivalent but that he secretly agrees with you. 4. He does not wish to admit this, so he responds in a cranky fashion when people question his authority. This is a far-fetched hypothesis. I would stop at the "suspicion" rather than erecting more beliefs and assumptions on top of it. Academic scientists often self-assured and as a rule they do not like it when people from outside their field question their authority. That is true of scientists were nearly always right such as Fleischmann and Arata, and also of the ones who are usually wrong. The point is, being self-assured and standing by your claim is not evidence that you secretly have doubts. As I said I think is a bad idea to try to judge the truth or falsity of a technical argument with reference to your opponent's behavior or personality. I also think is a bad idea to speculate about other people's state of mind or what they truly believe. It is impossible to know what anyone truly believes. People often themselves do not know what it is they believe, since the mind is not a single unified entity but rather a decentralized massively parallel set of cognitive processes, some of them in opposition to one another. You do not think one thing at a time. A brain engages in millions or billions of trains of thought. You may be paying attention to only one at a given moment but that's another story. I think you should try to explain how 30 L of water in a 40 kg metal vessel can remain boiling at a high temperature for 35 minutes while 6 L of tap water is added. I do not think that is possible unless there is a source of energy in the vessel. I think this is indisputable proof that the eCat produces anomalous heat. Arguments about Galantini's personality and motivations are trivial in comparison. - Jed
