On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected]>wrote:
> My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of > the eCat being true. ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a thousand or million to one. > You need go to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. > Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I > could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. > > I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. > ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. > I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track > record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being > said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant > generation of heat for long periods of time. > ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. > > Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities > rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian > point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. > ***Then your odds should not have changed. Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. > > > > We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how > strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments > about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. > ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. > The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author > comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked > thoroughly by all involved. > ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
