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. > >