Mary Yugo, Thanks for your playful, competent, matter of fact skepticism. I'm amazed the network of delusion re Rossi has persisted so long and far. Horace Heffner has noted that very few are studying his cogent, careful, detailed critiques -- many voices are trying to establish a party line, ignoring or unable to follow his arguments. It is good that on the whole, the discussions are courteous. I sent two of Joshua Cude's crisp posts to Trisha McDonell <[email protected]>, [email protected] to forward to Stefano Concezzi --
You can ask her to forward posts to Stefano Concezzi ... Rich Murray On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mary, you seem to love to find ways to scam scientific tests or do magic >> tricks or whatever. Let me ask you a question. Can you name one >> scientific experiment that is impossible to scam from the past? I tried >> and can not come up with one, so give it a try. There are many ways to >> suggest a trick that could, maybe be done. I will grant you this: Rossi >> has left the possible field open to a lot of tricks. >> >> Give one example of an experiment that is fool proof to save me from >> having to think too hard. I bet the vortex can figure a way to fake any >> you name. >> > > OK, I'll play. Fake an atomic bomb. > > But the argument is silly. I agree almost any subtle looking and complex > experiment can be faked. THAT'S MY POINT. And Rossi's experiments are so > loosely done and so different from one to another that it's hard to follow > what he's doing. The whole purpose of having independent testing is to > rule out fakery. Sure, the experimenters can be in on a scam. That's why > they need to have no association with Rossi and an excellent reputation for > skill and fairness. That's why I named the companies and labs I did. > > You suggest that because we accept other experiments from the past that > could have been faked, we should also accept Rossi's. But that's > defective reasoning. The only evidence that Rossi's device works has > always involved Rossi's equipment and methods. That's the problem. The > problem is not that anything can be a scam. It's that Rossi's device could > fairly easily be a scam. The corollary is that a scam can be easily ruled > out except that Rossi, who has done all sorts of complicated and > time/effort consuming maneuvers, won't allow it! >
