Talk-Polywell.org

KitemanSA wrote:Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

But we need not the evidence of lack. But we need the evidence of existence.
Confucius spoke about search of black cat in a dark room. And said that it is very difficult to find: black-dark. Especially if there is no any cat.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack.

But we need not the evidence of lack. But we need the evidence of existence.
Confucius spoke about search of black cat in a dark room. And said that it is very difficult to find: black-dark. Especially if there is no any cat.

Unless you capture the cat, there is no proof that the cat is there, but there is no proof that the cat is NOT there either. "Not proven" does not mean "proven not".

We stand at "not proven".

KitemanSA wrote:We stand at "not proven".

Really?
Buy from me the 1 MW e-cat device for 1 or 2 millions USD is not fraud if you also stand at "not proven"?
Or you with your good English do not know what does "fraud" mean?

It really should be a lesson in not making fantastical claims when you have no ability to prove your claims or no inclination. Once you make said claims, the onus is on you to provided empirical evidence of claim to allow for comment. Although we can't say with absolute certainty that Rossi is wrong, we have sufficient evidence not to believe him.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:We stand at "not proven".

Really?
Buy from me the 1 MW e-cat device for 1 or 2 millions USD is not fraud if you also stand at "not proven"?
Or you with your good English do not know what does "fraud" mean?

Kite is discussing a state (yes, proven/no, not proven) and you argue probability as the answer. Sometimes I wonder whether you truly make mistakes regarding your interpretation of English or whether you know exactly what you are commenting on just to be irritating?

JoeP wrote:Sometimes I wonder whether you truly make mistakes regarding your interpretation of English

I am interpreting only facts regardless in what language those are announced.
Commonly that's true that "Lack of evidence does not mean the evidence of lack". But the second true is in that attempt to sell not proven device as already commercialized product is a fraud.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:We stand at "not proven".

Really?
Buy from me the 1 MW e-cat device for 1 or 2 millions USD is not fraud if you also stand at "not proven"?
Or you with your good English do not know what does "fraud" mean?

If you are so sure that it is fraud, you have the ability to perform a citizens arrest. Do so. Charge him with fraud. Be prepared to have your a$$ handed to you in court.

You seem to take "lack of proof" as "proof of lack". This is a "religious" argument. But heck, you are allowed your own religious beliefs.

KitemanSA wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:We stand at "not proven".

Really?
Buy from me the 1 MW e-cat device for 1 or 2 millions USD is not fraud if you also stand at "not proven"?
Or you with your good English do not know what does "fraud" mean?

If you are so sure that it is fraud, you have the ability to perform a citizens arrest. Do so. Charge him with fraud. Be prepared to have your a$$ handed to you in court.

You seem to take "lack of proof" as "proof of lack". This is a "religious" argument. But heck, you are allowed your own religious beliefs.

In God we trust. Yes.
But also I trust in very simple rules formulated very well by Tomklarck: "Extraordinary claims should be confirmed by extraordinary evidences."

Certainly you can right to believe me if I would say: “I can build time machine”
Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.
Now I am selling that time machine.
Price one billion North American rubles. Not fraud?

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:You seem to take "lack of proof" as "proof of lack". This is a "religious" argument. But heck, you are allowed your own religious beliefs.

In God we trust. Yes.
But also I trust in very simple rules formulated very well by Tomklarck: "Extraordinary claims should be confirmed by extraordinary evidences."

I just said that. Many times.

Joseph Chikva wrote: Certainly you can right to believe me if I would say: “I can build time machine”

Here is where you go astray. Nowhere did I state or imply or even suggest that "I believe" Rossi. But neither is there "proof" that he is perpetrating a fraud. You may suspect so. That makes you wise. But if you state you "know" so, where is your proof? Purported statements of FACT require proof. He needs to Prove he is right. You need to PROVE you are right. Till then, not proven EITHER WAY!

Joseph Chikva wrote: Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.
Now I am selling that time machine.
Price one billion North American rubles. Not fraud?

Is it? Have you made such a claim?
I presume your statements have been hypothetical.
Given that, I presume that I would suspect strongly that you are a fraud. But until the data are in, "not proven". But don't expect ME to line up to buy one.

KitemanSA wrote:But don't expect ME to line up to buy one.

Hehe. My friend does not believe me.
Can you enough money for buying even coffee machine?

tomclarke wrote:
I can say green men live in the moon. You can't disprove. But do you take me seriously?

I

I would invent a theory about little Kreen Ken living in the moon. I would argue fervently for it. I would encourage all to theorize as to how it would be possible for little green men to live in the moon. Any who objected to theorizing would get a stern talking to. Any who objected to my theory on any grounds would be soundly argued with (even contradicted). If anyone questioned the potential of little green men living in the moon, I would insist that they are closed minded. If anyone even suggested the word probability be used in relation to the subject I would yell at the top of my lungs that the word is inappropriate and that likely is a more suitable word and I would instantly commence name calling. I would not object even a bit to the people who said that little green men were living in the moon even if they did so without a shred of evidence.

Then, I would proclaim that I never said little green men were living in the moon, in fact I think they probably aren't, but I can't prove that they aren't, so I need to behave as if they are. I would treat my statement as if this were some great revelation that others can't possibly understand the great intellectual significance of.

Finally, I would privately and pridefully marvel at my own zenful state of open mindedness never really understanding that what I really have is a ...

... total lack of conviction.

seedload wrote: Finally, I would privately and pridefully marvel at my own zenful state of open mindedness never really understanding that what I really have is a ...

... total lack of conviction.

You've finally hit the nail on the head! I have a total lack of conviction that you know what you are talking about.

Thus, when you say "this is so", I am not convinced by your repeated harpings that depend on your omniscience. I humbley proclaim, I don't know. Show me data. I need data. Your babblings aren't data. Show me data. So far, none.

Tick, tock...

KitemanSA wrote:If you are so sure that it is fraud, you have the ability to perform a citizens arrest. Do so. Charge him with fraud. Be prepared to have your a$$ handed to you in court.

You seem to take "lack of proof" as "proof of lack". This is a "religious" argument. But heck, you are allowed your own religious beliefs.

Why arrest him? This is better than EEStor and the entertainment cost is just my time.

So K,

How is your religion coming? Existence of proof is not proof of existence.

Me? I think Rossi is a fraud. And a very good one. I believe this game has gone on longer than EEStor.

MSimon wrote: Me? I think Rossi is a fraud. And a very good one. I believe this game has gone on longer than EEStor.

Well it seems from all the fuss that Rossi must be good at something. And we know from his public contradictions that the something certainly ain't science or technology...

MSimon wrote: Why arrest him? This is better than EEStor and the entertainment cost is just my time.

Yup, it is fun.

MSimon wrote: So K,

How is your religion coming? Existence of proof is not proof of existence.

Ummm, wha?

MSimon wrote: Me? I think Rossi is a fraud. And a very good one. I believe this game has gone on longer than EEStor.

I tend to agree with your "thought" except I haven't ruled out delusion nor a SMALL likelihood that he might be on to something.

You stated, you "think" he is a fraud". The others state categorically that "he is a fraud". Where is their proof?

I suspect you have seen sufficient indicators that you "think" he is a fraud. Fair enough.
I "think" he is a fraud or a megalomaniac, or maybe just with a very remote likelihood a miracle might be happening and he might be right.