On 11-11-16 08:59 AM, James Bowery wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
I guess you missed my point. Let me restate it, more clearly and
succinctly.
Your blanket statement that "any subsequent claims of advances on P&F's
cold fusion claim are likewise invalidated" if P&F's result was invalid
is false, and that is the case regardless of whether Rossi's work is
scientifically impeccable, totally fraudulent, or just a mass
hallucination shared by all posters to this list.
