Simpler explanation: Jed's witness is not telling the truth.
We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely possible that he is saying things that are not true. Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one witness would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on. Jed, as you said, this is interesting preliminary information but not evidence at all. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic. > > > > > > Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it > > until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is a > novel > > standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the moment as a way to > > dismiss cold fusion. I doubt he would apply it to other claims. > > > > Maybe he would. Maybe he will not believe that Boeing 747 airplanes can > fly > > until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to pilot one, and he will > not > > believe people went to the moon until every amateur enthusiast gets a > chance > > to fly an Apollo rocket. > > > > - Jed > > That is why I called them _zealous_ skeptics. In their eyes what they > write is plausible. > Zealots will use the language of reason to persuade themselves that > they are reasonable and that their opponents are deluded, quacks, > scammers, morons etc. > > Harry > >
