Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo

Alain,

That just goes to show that "looking good" as judged by you is not a reliable estimate.

Skeptics thought DGT was most likely not for real (like Rossi and others) because claimed technology related to Rossi, and had they been for real very different things - Nobel Prizes, would energy problems solved, etc - would eventuate. In other words, it was not looking good.

Given DGT were not for real, the "public demo" was unlikely to be for real. You can hardly expect skeptics to know how it was not for real until sufficient evidence became available. In fact it was lucky, in this case, that we have that evidence. Also, you can see that adopting a "it must be real unless it can be proven not real" first estimate of these demos is unwise, given the history, and specific circumstances.

You are giving "looking good" and "fraud" as two alternates. I guess correct in this case. But how about the more common one of "hope and delusion" that has afflicted people with eccentric world-saving ideas through history?

The topic here is that it might be better to listen to contrary skeptics like MY, who have been in some cases proven right, rather than ban them. No-one has to agree with her. Indeed I often do not.

Quote from Alain

in fact you explain how you detect fraud.
1- you know it is impossible
2-you have no data to be sure of any fraud/artifact/error
3- you conclude there is an unidentified fraud/artifact/error

in fact why discuss, you don't need any data, any evidence, to conclude.

I know you are intelligent, so does this raise a bell in your epistemological brain?

Display More

Again, this argument shows binary thinking and is not realistic. I'm saying, we may have good reason (in absence of contrary evidence) to expect a given demo showing extraordinary effects is flawed, even though we may not know how it is flawed. That does not mean we know the demo is flawed, but it means the initial response is not "looking good". No-one here objects to this principle of extraordinary caution about extraordinary claims when it comes to UFOs, ghosts, etc. And i'm not making the assumption (that Alain makes implicitly above) that an inventor or scientist convinced they have found LENR must be either correct or fraudulent. That flies in the face of much history.

My precise statement was:

Quote

Skeptics thought DGT was most likely not for real (like Rossi and others) because claimed technology related to Rossi, and had they been for real very different things - Nobel Prizes, would energy problems solved, etc - would eventuate. In other words, it was not looking good.

Given DGT were not for real, the "public demo" was unlikely to be for real.

You can I hope see the difference from Kowalski's certainty above. Not sure whether he is so certain himself, or quoting others as being (incorrectly) this certain. The point is that these things are not binary. A good scientist can think LENR claims are very unlikely, and evaluate evidence in that light, without either dismissing them as impossible or being himself biassed. And, by the way, a good scientist can be wrong without being biassed.

It is also true that everyone is human. Some otherwise good scientists may, out of pique, annoyance, or bloody-mindedness, refuse to continue to look at a 1 in 1000 chance that they have been asked to evaluate many times before and has never changed. That is no crime. They may also (incorrectly) use words like "impossible" to justify their lack of continued interest. And, there are no doubt scientists whose urge to show LENR is false has an irrational edge to it every bit as unfortunate as the equivalent in those believing in LENR. The fact that the scientist is much more likely to be right than the believer makes the consequences of his irrational certainty less likely to be significant, but it does not justify the irrationality. You could argue that LENR should receive especially careful consideration, even as a long-shot, because the rewards were it real and understood are so high. In fact that is why many scientists still look at it.

Returning to Kowalski's quote, looking from the outside, I could not say quickly whether a specific scientist here was motivated by some irrational certainty, or just summarising the best evidence he had available and dismissing LENR because it was a 1000 to 1 chance. And, while I'd want everyone to be careful about using words, I would understand if in casual speech a "1000 to 1 chance" got turned into "impossible". You do not have to be irrational to use words in that careless way, but you do sound irrational when you do it. You also do not have to be biassed to note the flaws in an experiment and say that 1000 similar experiments would not alter your position.

These matters of establishing probabilities and evaluating evidence cannot be done from sound bites - they leave out the detail. They also cannot be done from binary arguments.

Quote from Alain

Freedom of speech should be enforced, but not on every-place.Critics should always be allowed, but may have to be published in it's own places, to be read voluntarily.

Quote from Alain

Any engineer consider usefulness of people when a work or a decision is to be produced.A skeptic who bring interesting data is useful for "the optimistic", as it improve the quality of the decisions, even painful decisions.A nay-believers who derail any discussion, prevent good peer review, and push optimistic to circle the wagon, while hiding good critics.

Quote

I don't talk of MY, as she is not the worst all the time, but recently she derailed many otherwise productive exchanges. It seems an algorithm decided to ban her and consensus feel it was not unfair.

Thanks for this. I'm not sure there can ever be a consensus about these matters. Some will feel that heretic views should never be aired. Personally I accept that views very different from mine, even ones I find distasteful, should be heard because to listen and respond is the best way to proceed. There are some people here who I rarely respond to because their posts have, from my standpoint, zero content, and reiterating this would be boring. MY perhaps comes into this category when repeating a well-known viewpoint. OTOH there are not many who bring new facts to the table, and MY as one of these should be treasured.

Quote

Being objective and 'fair' we must admit that 'foul mouthed verbal terrorist' on the very odd occasion may speak sense. But in consideration of that, would we let them all in no questions asked, I don't think so.

Anyone can speak sense. Bringing new facts in is nevertheless to be treasured, and rare to find.

Quote

Hitler gave the German people Volkswagen (the peoples car) and trains that ran on time, new facts that lead to rocketry that would one day land a man on the moon, but Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin did not think he should be treasured although some people apparently did and still do.

I don't think comparisons with Hitler help this discussion, do you? If there was a comparison, it would be that preventing dissent (something Hitler did, of course) can lead a whole country towards disaster.

Quote

I am confused as to why a disciple of Bayesian logic such as yourself could support tolerating aggressive, disrespectful, inciting rhetoric, opinionated half truths and no truths, on the off chance there may be a 'new fact' presented. MY was an influence which on the whole was detrimental to the 'process of discovery' by engineering the construction of a 'reputation trap' aka Huw Price. Something you may or may not wish to admit you have in common with her/him.

Do you really believe that decision-makers, or scientists, care what is written on obscure internet forums? Huw Price is a philosopher and less qualified to comment on this matter than me (not that I'm very qualified - but at least I've bothered to look at the scientific evidence).

Further, MY has (unlike me) not expressed any strong view wrt whether LENR exists. It is just that she sees behaviour in some of the companies claiming to work on LENR that she claims is fraudulent. She provides facts to support her suppositions and while I don't agree - I find fraud always very hard to prove, and it is not the first thing I think of - her facts are relevant to the broader matter of whether said companies are in fact wasting everyone's time and a few people's money.

Perhaps you could substantiate your claims by saying what process of discovery by whom has been affected detrimentally by MY's posts?

Quote

that Huw Price has not bothered to look at the scientific evidence (which he has))

Huw has not acknowledged, or not understood, the fact that the Lugano test was 100% wrong. He quotes others as being convinced by it as evidence for Rossi having something - a clear case of confirmation bias. So whether this is lack of attention on his part or inability (expected given his background) to come to a definitive view on the details, my point stands. It has in fact nothing to do with Bayesian logic, except inasfar as you could argue that all sound reasoning about the world was inductive.

Quote

Answer - Claims that would in all likelihood land him/her in a lot of trouble if exposed to legal tests which I suspect is why she/he hides behind pseudonyms and a VPN.

• MY has written personally to the CEO of Elforsk - hardly hiding.
• Your statement here is unsubstantiated and insulting. It would be helpful if you gave facts to support it.

Quote

Answer - She/he is a character assassin, however, some people do agree this is a legitimate method of influence. It appears this website does not I am very pleased to say, how about you?.

The word "character assassin" assumes illegitimacy:

Quote from google search

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

Your question is therefore rhetorical but also you'd need to show how MY's abrasive comments are illegitimate as above and hence constitute character assassination. I think you will find that about as difficult to prove as it would be to prove any of these players are in fact fraudulent.

Personally, and from observation here, I find comment on fraud to be a very ineffective way to influence others. People either agree (in which case there is no change) or disagree, as you do. In that case the fact that such an inflammatory topic is raised makes them unreceptive to further debate, and generally does not help. And, personally, I'm reluctant to reach strong conclusions on matters that relate to other people's motives.

Quote

Her attacks on Rossi as a fraud without any 'factual' foundation whatsoever (particularly when tested against your Bayesian logic), which of course you already know. If I am wrong on this please enlighten me.

MY quotes, on Rossi, copious evidence which tends, circumstantially, to add credence to her position. When I've challenged her she has said that given Rossi has no working device his actions are tantamount to fraud. While I agree with MY there is plentiful circumstantial evidence:
(1) His energy-related inventions have never worked as claimed, and never delivered useful technology
(2) His career in energy-related inventions thus far (Petroldragon, TEGs, E-Cats) has enriched him very significantly
(3) His actions over E-Cat demos are easily explained by a deliberate (or possibly unconscious) wish to deceive others, and otherwise represent a remarkable set of coincidences.
(4) He sets up multiple companies with assets but little evidence of "real" activity, mildly indicative of though in no way proving ill-intent.

(if you want examples we could go for that on another thread - but I hope you will not insist)

I don't agree that this plentiful evidence is enough to prove fraud. But you can see that I'm no Rossi fan, and that MY, quoting all this evidence, may feel she is unlikely to face any legal challenge from Rossi.

This is not my favourite topic, and though you are asking me to dredge all this well-known stuff up, to show that MY's comments here have some evidential basis, I'd rather just let it rest.

Frank,

Quote

This is your thread and by implication favoured by you

You misunderstand me. I think banning MY from this site was retrogressive and entirely negative. I started this thread because that is my belief, and while I'll not go on about it all the time I certainly think the matter of censorship creeping in here as on ECW is serious.

However, dredging up the factual details of why MY sincerely believes Rossi to be fraudulent is not interesting, they are all known, and it is that I was referring to. You asked me to do this.

Frank,

These issues re MY don't irritate me. I make the point about insulting because I think banning her from this site was uncalled for, and similar to the loathsome censorship on ECW where discussions are conducted in a cosy bubble of like-minded people because all those with heretic views have been chased away. I realise this site is not yet so bad (or I would be banned) but I see MY's banning as the start of a slippery slope.

I'm not entirely sure what, in your last post, I'm supposed to be receiving, I guess because I don't understand your point, but don't worry. You have not yet got close to my tolerance for abrasive discourse. By all means do marshall your evidence that I am fraudulent etc should you have any. Unlike Rossi, I will reply with clear facts, and promise not to call you a snake.

Quote

I don't relish that so I am prepared to apologise to you (Mary) unreservedly until we have had a chance to set out an agreed protocol for this exchange. (There you see; agreed protocol, now there's a novelty)

Thanks for that. It is a pity that MY is not here to receive your apology. But that is the way of censorship.