How likely do you think it is that the Rossi E-Cat will be proven, within the next 25 years, to produce substantially greater output to input due to "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions"?
{added time limit phrase}
E-Cat Likelyhood?
E-Cat Likelyhood?
Last edited by KitemanSA on Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah! But you see the issue is that the E-cat will NEVER be proven to NOT work, because no-one will agree.
As it were, the 'pro' Rossitronists have a sure-fire game - they will be proven right if such a thing gets sold into every home and we stay warm by it over winter. But those that run the gauntlet of defying the Emperor's clothes will never be admitted into the ranks of those allowed to disprove it.
So my reply would be that it is 100% sure that it will never be dis-proven, because this is the kind of non-science that its supporters will never accept is, or allow to be, dis-proven.
As it were, the 'pro' Rossitronists have a sure-fire game - they will be proven right if such a thing gets sold into every home and we stay warm by it over winter. But those that run the gauntlet of defying the Emperor's clothes will never be admitted into the ranks of those allowed to disprove it.
So my reply would be that it is 100% sure that it will never be dis-proven, because this is the kind of non-science that its supporters will never accept is, or allow to be, dis-proven.
Me neither. I just want to understand what wanyone might find acceptable as material that 'proves' it doesn't work.
Can someone please suggest something?
If you can't prove something doesn't work, then it seems flawed to attempt to decide on it either way.
A bit like Global Warming, really. Apparently - if it gets hotter then it proves GW, if it gets colder it proves GW, yet if it stays exactly the same then all it proves is your measurements are in error. LENR/global warming? Is there much difference in the approach to the non-science? Why would anyone get involved in guessing when the opinions seem to be independent of the facts [or lack thereof]?
Can someone please suggest something?
If you can't prove something doesn't work, then it seems flawed to attempt to decide on it either way.
A bit like Global Warming, really. Apparently - if it gets hotter then it proves GW, if it gets colder it proves GW, yet if it stays exactly the same then all it proves is your measurements are in error. LENR/global warming? Is there much difference in the approach to the non-science? Why would anyone get involved in guessing when the opinions seem to be independent of the facts [or lack thereof]?
Unfortunately it does not depend on the effect itself but on the people.
People who want to believe that it works will never accept that it does not, even if they are the one making the test. They will even come to blame themselves for some unknown error or obscure reason, but they will never doubt.
I think this is just a defect of our specie.
People who want to believe that it works will never accept that it does not, even if they are the one making the test. They will even come to blame themselves for some unknown error or obscure reason, but they will never doubt.
I think this is just a defect of our specie.
Specie, ablative singular of latin "species"KitemanSA wrote:That's right, we don't throw enough specie at it.Giorgio wrote: I think this is just a defect of our specie.
Nickels anyone? Time to throw your 5 cents in!Wikipedia wrote:Specie may refer to:
Coins or other metal money in mass circulation
This is why it is so important to stick to The Scientific Method and not be tempted to deviate from it "because someone thinks they know better".Giorgio wrote:People who want to believe that it works will never accept that it does not, even if they are the one making the test. They will even come to blame themselves for some unknown error or obscure reason, but they will never doubt.
But I think we're just telling ourselves this, Giorgio, not sure anyone else cares to listen and comprehend what is involved in generating a hypothesis or null hypothesis and establishing a method to test it beforehand so as to avoid bias, what statistical sampling means, what repeatability means, what null-testing means. "Who cares what the camera guy thinks?" Right?
Unfortunately it looks like that. People probably tend to believe to something mainly for the "good" feeling it gives them, not understanding that sooner or later you have to face the reality of the situation.chrismb wrote:But I think we're just telling ourselves this, Giorgio, not sure anyone else cares to listen and comprehend what is involved in generating a hypothesis or null hypothesis and establishing a method to test it beforehand so as to avoid bias, what statistical sampling means, what repeatability means, what null-testing means. "Who cares what the camera guy thinks?" Right?
Love that comic by the way, it perfectly expresses what is happening.