Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > comments with the other person’s, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you > > repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it, > ok? > > > > Fine. But apparently a lot of people don't get it because they keep > assuming Rossi is necessarily or most likely telling the truth.
You are missing the point. Those people, including me, assume this for the sake of argument. That concept seems to elude many skeptics. It does not mean the same as "we believe X." It means we acknowledge the possibility of error or fraud, and *then we move on* to the rest of the discussion. I suggest you do the same. The argument that Rossi might be lying and doing stage magic begins and ends there. It is sterile. Unless you have some new evidence for it, beyond Rossi's flamboyant behavior, there is nothing more to be said about that subject. In groundbreaking science there is always the possibility of error. People spent years working on polywater before concluding it was an experimental error. That was not wasted time. On the contrary, some researchers later said it was the high point of their career. Even if Rossi is a fraud -- which is functionally similar to being in error -- close attention to his results will not be a waste of time. I have learned a lot studying him. My point was that you have no problems with their repetition. > We are *not* repeating that assertion. We do not need to repeat it because that is the agreed-upon basis of the discussion. You contribute nothing by repeating this. You are not telling us anything we do not know. Many aspects of cold fusion are proved beyond any rational doubt. Among people who have read the literature, only a handful of crackpots still dispute the heat and tritium. Many other claims are not so well established. We accept them for the sake of argument because it would be tiresome and pointless to start every statement with "while it may be wrong, there is some evidence for . . . [neutrons / some theory or other / Mills superchemistry / Ni => Cu transmutations / fill in the blank]." Everyone here knows that some people are convinced by Mills, others are not, and some including me have no clue whether Mills is a hit or miss. When people make bold, positive assertions about Mills, there is no call for others to interrupt and say: "Hey, wait a minute, we don't all agree there is any basis for that!" We don't have to agree. This is not a jury, an army headquarters, or a cult. There is no coercion. "This is not holdup. It's a science experiment!" as Doc said in *Back to the Future III.* You are even allowed to argue two sides of an issue, argue against yourself, or change your mind. Before his message disappeared into the void, I believe Cude threatened to expose the fact that years ago I expressed doubts about Piantelli, whereas I am now more persuaded by his claims. Cude thinks it is shameful for me to reconsider the evidence, and two-faced for me to change my mind. I do not think so. - Jed
