On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am saying that as a rule of logic, all assertions much be falsifiable, > Resorting to misunderstood rules is the refuge of people who have no good arguments left. Falsifiability just means it should be possible to conceive of an experimental result that would contradict the assertion. It's intended to avoid religious claims in a scientific arena. It's certainly possible to conceive of experimental results that would contradict all the claims that the ecat could be run on non-nuclear principles. They could all be falsified by a suitable isolated and inspected device that produced heat for a really really long time. So that the overall energy density (unambiguously measured) exceed unequivocally the energy density of the best chemical fuel. > and you cannot test or falsify this one. You cannot prove that some person > out in the world knows how to accomplish X, Y or Z. You would have have to > ask every stage magician on earth before determining whether this is true. > That is neither necessary, nor would it be sufficient. There are some tricks that haven't even been thought of yet. But James Randi would be out of a life's commitment if it weren't possible to set up controls on a demonstration that can exclude paranormal effects to discover the illusions used. He's done it repeatedly. Take for example a claim that a fission bomb (or hydrogen bomb) used sleight of hand to produce the claimed energy output. That claim could be pretty clearly falsified with a demonstration to the satisfaction of any observer you can imagine. Likewise, a small, completely isolated ecat (inspected by James Randi) that boils an olympic pool dry would falsify claims of magic to just about anyone's satisfaction. So would an ecat that powered a (small) vehicle to drive around the world without refueling. If you don't understand, then I suggest you read a book about logic. > When you have to suggest people read books about logic for them to accept a claim of a new *nuclear energy source*, it's a pretty safe bet the claim is bogus. Do you need to study Plato to believe fission bombs are real?
