Mary Yugo wrote:
Claim: Rossi may be faking this -- I don't know how.
Falsification: Someone independent and credible tested the device and
determined by this method (yadadada) it's real and not fake.
Right. Exactly. And in my opinion Rossi did this on Oct. 6. I think he
provided irrefutable proof that it is real. In your opinion he did not.
But that is a separate issue. Let's move on to:
I think that works but maybe not. I just don't understand your issues
with it. I'm being sincere and not sarcastic.
Of course. I am suggesting that you are making a logic error, not that
you are insincere.
I don't get what you want. Of course I don't know how Rossi might be
cheating. That doesn't mean he's not.
Here is my point. if you "do not know" how he might be cheating, then it
is not logical for you to propose this as a hypothesis to be debated
here. You can say it is your gut feeling he is cheating. That's fine.
That's an informal judgment. We welcome that here. But let us not
confuse a gut feeling with a scientific hypothesis.
In a formal scientific debate, every assertion or hypothesis has to be
specific enough to be tested: that is, proved or disproved. If you do
not know of any method of cheating, and you cannot specify any details
about how it might work, there is no way for the rest of us to judge
whether you are right or wrong.
This is an issue relating to logic and theory of science. It has nothing
to do with Rossi per se.
As I mentioned, there are other fields in which arguments do not have to
be strictly falsifiable, such as religion and literature.
- Jed
