Come on Kevin, you know how this works. In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from co-author) we need to update our priors.
The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the probability of it being real at any point in time. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over >> and OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get >> sick of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't >> care, and we don't want to hear it. >> >> - Jed >> >> ***I don't mind hearing it from someone like Blaze because he's someone > who will put his money where his mouth is... at least he used to be. He > might even be willing to bet on what he just wrote, if we had a contract > that said something like, "Andrea Rossi to be charged with fraud in > connection with the Ecat within 1 year." But I detect that Blaze is > learning a thing or 2 while he spends time on Vortex, and that's reflected > in his initial offer of 10:1 odds going down to 3:1 odds that the Ecat > isn't real or Rossi != Wright Brothers. > > When money is on the table, the game tightens. Someone like Joshua Cude > can just be blithely off by 4 THOUSAND orders of magnitude and nothing > holds him accountable. But if Joshua were to put his money where his mouth > was, a penny bet would generate more money than he could ever pay back in a > hundred lifetimes. So when someone is willing to put their money where > their mouth is, I consider them to be a small-s skeptic. >
