Jed: His two questions can easily be answered.
1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to be impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of fact is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed advance may produce. 2) Mankind. His analysis must assume the results are a fraud to advance his ethical charge. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote: > >> "One question for Mr. Guglielmi. >> >> If the paper had exposed a fraud, would you still consider the test >> unethical?" >> >> >> . . . Needless to say, he did not respond to this question, or to my remarks! > > Ah, he did answer the first question, with a song and dance: > > ". . . I would consider the test unethical if the answers to my two > questions: > > 1) How does your paper advance knowledge? > 2) Who will benefit from it? > > would come out as something like: 1) It doesn't; 2) Rossi and his associates. > > Obviously, if the test exposed a fraud the answer to question number (2) > would become `Nobody´, and this would somehow mitigate the lack of ethics. > Still, the answer to question (1) might be the same, and we still have to > consider that these scientists did make experiments in a commercial facility > and without being in control." > > > Guglielmi is a "logician in computer science." A logician in the classic > academic sense; an expert in splitting hairs and chopping logic. > > When people like this come out of the woodwork with daft arguments I get a > sense we may be making progress. This is the best they can come up with. > > - Jed >
