I see that behavior on conspiracy sites... 9/11 for example... but in many extremist opponents...
in facts Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain tha in real life, increasing the volume of details, reduce the capacity to take the good decision. big picture is often raising the best vision... I recognize tha pathoskeptics have also their big picture, with huge blind zone, and use hyper-criticism method only to manipulate open-mind people... for example on that affair of the e-cat rapport I don't get into the details, my questions are simply whether the testerts were free to test enough points to rule-out fraud, even if they did not test it... I put more weight on the opinion of Aldo Proia, Truchard, of the founder of Logitech, Duncan, of Nelson notes on his freedom confirmed by Gibbs, than on details in any report... the public name on the e-cat report , the claim of freedom, are the most important element... rest is noise. and beside that, what I see about business (not all is public), make me happy and confident. businessmen have no other choice that to find what is the real reality, and have no interest to safely stay dubious just to wait others to move, like the academics. What you see at NIWeek2013 and ICCF18, (sponsoring, participant), let no doubt that businessmen are not delusioned like academics. 2013/5/29 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > I wrote: > > I mean the totality of the evidence, as Mallove called it. People such as > Cude deny that there is such a thing as a totality of evidence. They do not > believe in the concept of supporting evidence. They say the tritium has > nothing to do with excess heat and neither of them has any connection to > the helium. They selectively deny one piece of evidence at a time, slicing > the problem into many bite-sized portions so they can raise imaginary > objections to one fact a time. > > This is an unscientific approach. > > - Jed > >
