On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> And I always have to remind you that there are probably many potential >> methods to cheat we may not have thought of. >> > > You do not have to remind me of that. I have to remind *you* that is a > violation of the scientific method. It is proposition that cannot be tested > or falsified. It is like saying there is probably an invisible undetectable > fairy godmother hovering in the air causing these effects. I find it > incredible that you still do not understand this. > > An argument is not valid or meaningful *at all* unless you can describe > some specific means of testing it and proving it is true -- or false. No > one can prove that "there are probably potential methods." You have to list > actual methods. You might as well claim "there are probably potential > methods of proving that the world is flat." Okay, show us the methods! > As I have pointed out before, that is an invalid argument. Rossi can invalidate the entire line of thought simply by giving an E-cat to a university, allowing them to test it and report the results. At this point, it wouldn't need to cost anything, would be quick and would be definitive and HE WON'T DO IT even though he started to promise he would as early as last Spring! If Rossi got a proper test, it would falsify the proposition that he is a scammer. It is exactly that simple. Until he does it, you have no way of knowing that he's not simply more clever at hiding bamboozling than you are at suspecting or detecting it!
