Randy Wuller <[email protected]> wrote: Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. >
Exactly! Yes it fraud is remotely possible, as I and everyone else who believes these results agree. We think it is highly unlikely, because it the instruments are reliable; because you can't melt steel by hiding electricity; and because fraud is certain to be caught before Rossi can cash in, so it serves no purpose. I think Andrew should address these issues. In this case you must posit fraud to counter proof. Fraud may or may not > be actually possible in this case but it can always be imagined. > > The real question is whether the scientific community is required to > ignore these results because they can imagine fraud. Such a position is > beyond lunacy to me. . . . > Right! Well said. - Jed
