On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 11-11-15 10:31 AM, James Bowery wrote: > >> The pseudoskeptics continually assert that their criticism of those who >> are investigating Rossi's claims has nothing to do with whether Pons and >> Fleischmann had any validity to their claims. This rhetorical maneuver >> denies the obvious Bayesian law of prior probability distribution: If >> P&F's cold fusion claim was not valid then any subsequent claims of >> advances on P&F's cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated. >> > > This is total nonsense. Experimental results must be judged on their own > merit, whether or not the reason for doing the experiments in the first > place was actually well founded. > That would be true if the experimental protocol were available. In Rossi's case, the experimental protocol is NOT available. What we are dealing with in Rossi's case is NOT science, but more in line with doing an intelligence estimate (as in intelligence agency). When doing such an estimate, the distinction between circumstantial evidence is not as important as it is when one is engaged in science, but it is still relevant. My point about P&F is that, while it is a "mere" circumstance of the Rossi phenomenon, it is highly relevant in investing investigative resources. If P&F were not valid, then Rossi's failure to provide experimental protocol would enhance the value of other circumstantial evidence and we would be in a world of shit so deep that it would probably not be worth even my relatively cheap time to look into it. The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by Jove!). This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if P&F were not valid. If P&F are valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims.
