On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One >>> good one suffices. >>> >>> >> > >> One good one that can be performed by anyone, or for anyone. >> > > Oh sure. Just like anyone can build a tokamak, or show us a Higgs boson, > or send a robot explorer to Mars. Or perform open heart surgery. > > Well, they can certainly be performed *for* anyone, and I used the word "or". Also, if by "anyone" is meant the usually implicit "anyone skilled in the art", then yes, those things can be performed by anyone, given the resources. Of course the resources are more prohibitive, but mars landers are not going to be restricted to this generation, and thousands are trained to perform heart surgery, etc. > Yes, we cannot believe a claim until anyone can do it. Yes, that has > always been a scientific principle. That is why no one believes in . . . > Oh, I don't know . . . Maybe 99.9% of all experiments and commercial > products. > > You're being obtuse here. There was an "or" in the sentence. Did you miss that? And with a statement like that, you should assume patent-type language, where anyone means anyone skilled in the art. > I am sure you don't believe that a Prius automobile or a Watson computer > can exist, since you cannot make one yourself. > > Anyone skilled in the art can make one, and it can certainly be demonstrated *for* anyone. So, its existence is safe. > This requirement has never been part of science. You have set it up for > cold fusion, and cold fusion alone, to give yourself yet another excuse to > deny reality. > > Wrong. It has always been part of science. You just don't understand it. And why would anyone want to deny cold fusion? Everyone likes cheap, abundant, and clean energy. > >> Such a thing doesn't exist, or it would have been done for the DOE panel. >> > > The DoE panel could have visited a lab and seen a reaction, the way Garwin > and later Duncan did. > Garwin was not convinced by what he saw, and gave many possible explanations for the feeble excess heat that was claimed. > > And when I asked for an experiment that one could do with an expected >> result, you linked to the Bayesian analysis. >> > > No, I linked to McKubre, Storms, Miles, Will and others, > You referred to Storms and the bayesian analysis. It's in the archives: www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg79820.html > A Bayesian analysis shows that since the scientific method does work, in > the life of the universe you would not see a mistake repeated thousands of > times in hundreds of labs. Anyone with any knowledge of science or > technology would know this. > > Murray Gell-Mann has no knowledge of science or technology, I guess. Anyway, elsewhere you argue "History is full of large groups of intelligent people who made ignorant errors" > But what I have never seen, and will never see, would be a thousand > automobiles lined up on Peachtree Road in Atlanta all suddenly and > simultaneously catch on fire and burn up. > > > Has no resemblance to random occurrences of artifacts in calorimetry in some fraction of experiments.
