Yes when a pseudoskeptic comes up with a scattershot of arguments in the
alternative it is thought crime to take one of them and determine its
veracity so as to eliminate a possibility.  The pseudoskeptic's purpose is
not for you to evaluate the arguments but to be frightened of thinking.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth
>> construct a similar model and prove me wrong.
>>
>
>
> I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the
> experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of
> which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical
> engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and
> would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the
> experiment.
>
>
> I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of
> deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the
> possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not*
> selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it
> as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source
> (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like
> heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi
> has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an
> unequivocal demonstration.
>
>
> > This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way
> science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of
> cooperation between all parties concerned.
>
>
> If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying
> to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its
> best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi
> needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about
> what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone
> already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate
> in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
>
>

Reply via email to