One possibility, as others have mentioned and which I agree could be the case here, is that Rossi is deluding himself and is honestly working in the hope of finally getting the technology right.
It must at least be considered. But it is difficult to come to that conclusion based on a single-person delusion. Mass delusion is required.
Have customers testify that they bought X tons of the product every week.
It must be X times 33.5 tons a day not weeks!
QuoteOne possibility, as others have mentioned and which I agree could be the case here, is that Rossi is deluding himself and is honestly working in the hope of finally getting the technology right. The thing is that this explanation really doesn't square with the blatant signs of scam. The only way that you could have a genuine, hard-working person being able to overcome the ethical dilemma of creating the illusion of a real scam is if he was desperate or paranoid enough.
I'd just like to add this. For me (IHFB "why are you here") a good deal of the interest is Rossi psychology, but I also find the whole LENR fringe science stuff (is it real science - or pseudo-science?) fascinating, and like science (hence my pseudonym).
Rossi's role here is interesting exactly because he convinces others, and it is not a mass delusion, and yet much of his behaviour has been scam-like. It is common to get deluded inventors who convince, common also to get scammers who convince, Rossi somehow fits both and neither.
Some have argued that those convinced have been particularly gullible. That is part truth. Also, anyone believing LENR real, would reckon Rossi could have it, even if he is not honest. I think that is another part of the truth.
But there remains Rossi's own character. Does he deliberately deceive, or does he believe in what he is doing?
My (best guess) answer would be: "both!". People can operate well with extreme cognitive dissonance. In Rossi's case I think he views approbation as validation. Scientific truth just is not something he thinks about. His judgement of success or failure comes from his ability to deliver dramatic effect. You might think this was a scammer, but if Rossi sees his role as convincing - because the science is done - it makes sense. People can be very good at ignoring inconvenient facts and for Rossi to ignore all the science evidence against his stuff would be easy-peasy. After all some here seem to manage to do the same...
Maybe this is all wrong, but I find it fascinating
(IHFB "why are you here")
Love your inexplicably embedded parenthetical. I must be on your mind somehow! :hi:
@IHFB
You want me to be more long-winded? 
It was answering your question a few posts back!
I'd just like to add this. For me ... a good deal of the interest is Rossi psychology, but I also find the whole LENR fringe science stuff (is it real science - or pseudo-science?) fascinating, and like science (hence my pseudonym).
It is indeed a fantastic epistemological problem. I think Huw Price, the Cambridge philosopher, might have touched on this idea. You have a field that is perhaps a proto- or fringe science, and now you have to do the best job you can to figure out whether it's got substance behind it, or whether it's just pseudoscience. How is that determination made? For most (all?) it must be made without the benefit of relevant training. One option is to delegate one's critical faculties to the likes of Huizenga, Lewis, Taubes, Cude and Ascoli65, or other people with strong opinions. That is an option: this stuff is over my head, and I'm just going to go along with whatever they think. They seem very knowledgeable, and I don't have a strong opinion. They say that this stuff is pseudoscience, so that's probably what it is, all else being equal.
Another option, a better one, is to not delegate one's critical faculties to those guys, even if one thinks they might be right or partly right. But then you don't have the experts to tell you what to think, and if you're like most people neither do you have the training in the relevant subfields of chemistry or physics, or perhaps even any training in science at all, which might be helpful in assessing various strange claims that are made here and there. And there are some bland claims along with some very strange claims, but even the bland claims have subversive implications. So one is a little bit in a bind. Coming into the matter cold, one has to gradually build up a network of related propositions that one thinks are probable, at least in relative terms, as well as a network of people whose opinions one trusts on specific topics (but not on any and all topics they might have an opinion about). And then gradually one might be able to start to have an informed opinion on whether LENR is proto-science, fringe science, pseudoscience, or simply just ignored and maligned science. And what one finds, or at least what I've found, is that the field appears to be a bit of all of those things, and it's all mixed up together. In order to get to any substance, one must filter any polemic that comes at one from various directions, and, straining various claims and reports and polemic with a strainer, try to get a handle on any facts that might remain. It is a difficult thing to make progress on, but it's a fascinating thing to try.
THHuxley wrote: I'd just like to add this. For me ... a good deal of the interest is Rossi psychology, but I also find the whole LENR fringe science stuff (is it real science - or pseudo-science?) fascinating, and like science (hence my pseudonym).
THHuxley was an example of how prejudice obstructs science. His pronouncements about human evolution were pseudoscience
Thomas Huxley claimed that the skulls of Australians –
whom he referred to as ‘the lowest and most degraded in rank of any which can claim humanity’ –
‘are wonderfully near the degraded type of the Neanderthal skull’ (1862: 166).
https://www.google.com.au/?gws…+the+Australian+Aborigine.
Hopefully the 21st Century reincarnation will be less pseudo.
Quote from bryantTHHuxley was an example of how prejudice obstructs science. His pronouncements about human evolution were pseudoscienceThomas Huxley claimed that the skulls of Australians – whom he referred to as ‘the lowest and most degraded in rank of any which can claim humanity’ –‘are wonderfully near the degraded type of the Neanderthal skull’ (1862: 166).
THHuxley was, as you point out, sometimes wrong, and not unaffected by the prejudices of his time.
That does not stop him from being a good scientist. All good scientists are sometimes wrong.
THHuxley was admirable in the clarity with which he recognised this:
Quote from THH (the real one)
To begin with the great doctrine you discuss. I neither deny nor affirm the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. Pray understand that I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force, or the indestructibility of matter. Whoso clearly appreciates all that is implied in the falling of a stone can have no difficulty about any doctrine simply on account of its marvellousness. But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man’s life is to say and to feel, “I believe such and such to be true.” All the greatest rewards and all the heaviest penalties of existence cling about that act. The universe is one and the same throughout; and if the condition of my success in unravelling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms. It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.
(letter Huxley wrote to the Reverend Charles Kingsley on 23 September 1860)
Rather, it is pseudoscientists (perhaps consider L. Ron Hubbard as a classic example) who claim to be always right.
this stuff is over my head, and I'm just going to go along with whatever they think.
Shocking
So all your more or less subtle, but constant and regular FUD is based on a cult arguments of authority coming from "zetetic" (lol!) debunkers?
This gets better every day
QuoteAnd yet, you are still here.
Watching it all unfold is interesting. At least that's what I'm telling myself. The real reason is probably just that I like to gloat. Not sure I'd be here if I would believe in Rossi. I'd probably sit on my doorstep waiting for delivery of the home-cat I would have (pre)ordered back in 2011, impatiently staring at my watch from time to time wondering whether they've got my address wrong.
Shocking
So all your more or less subtle, but constant and regular FUD is based on a cult arguments of authority coming from "zetetic" (lol!) debunkers?
Keieueue, you're just a troll at this point. But I'd be interested in your attempting to substantiate what you've said here. What's the constant and regular FUD, for example? Perhaps you're referring to reasoned arguments that the prospects for Rossi's legal case look unpromising, going back to elements of IH's Answer? Where have I used argument from authority? Or are you just stringing together unsubstantiated things in order to feel good?
Wow man take a chill pill, why do you get mad at facts?
Let's look at the FUD in your post from 12 hours ago :
Quote from Your friendly neighborhood social engineerIt is indeed a fantastic epistemological problem. I think Huw Price, theCambridge philosopher, might have touched on this idea. You have a field that is perhaps a proto- or fringe science, and now you have to do the best job you can to figure out whether it's got substance behind it, or whether it's just pseudoscience. How is that determination made? For most (all?) it must be made without the benefit of relevant training. One option is to delegate one's critical faculties to the likes of Huizenga, Lewis, Taubes, Cude and Ascoli65, or other people with strong opinions. That is an option: this stuff is over my head, and I'm just going to go along with whatever they think. They seem very knowledgeable, and I don't have a strong opinion. They say that this stuff is pseudoscience, so that's probably what it is, all else being equal.
Another option, a better one, is to not delegate one's critical faculties to those guys, even if one thinks they might be right or partly right. But then you don't have the experts to tell you what to think, and if you're like most people neither do you have the training in the relevant subfields of chemistry or physics, or perhaps even any training in science at all, which might be helpful in assessing various strange claims that are made here and there. And there are some bland claims along with some very strange claims, but even the bland claims have subversive implications. So one is a little bit in a bind. Coming into the matter cold, one has to gradually build up a network of related propositions that one thinks are probable, at least in relative terms, as well as a network of people whose opinions one trusts on specific topics (but not on any and all topics they might have an opinion about). And then gradually one might be able to start to have an informed opinion on whether LENR is proto-science, fringe science, pseudoscience, or simply just ignored and maligned science. And what one finds, or at least what I've found, is that the field appears to be a bit of all of those things, and it's all mixed up together. In order to get to any substance, one must filter any polemic that comes at one from various directions, and, straining various claims and reports and polemic with a strainer, try to get a handle on any facts that might remain. It is a difficult thing to make progress on, but it's a fascinating thing to try.
1st paragraph: F ("well the academia says it doesn't work... : / ")
2nd paragraph: UD ("it may or may not work" + every sentence is loaded: examples in bold and red)
Textbook FUD, it's even in the right order
It's so properly stringed together that you're one sad propaganda victim if you do it unconsciously, as you got pure unalduterated kool-aid coursing through your veins
If you know that you're doing what you're doing, well... lol @ you
Textbook FUD, it's even in the right order
It's so properly stringed together that you're one sad propaganda victim if you do it unconsciously, as you got pure unalduterated kool-aid coursing through your veins
Keieueue, you're a hoot. You're taking a balanced description of the phenomenology that one experiences as they become acquainted with the LENR field and calling it FUD. I suspect it is unknown to you that it is a description that many in the field would agree with. Your justification for saying that this is FUD is to link the words of the initialism back to concrete elements of the post that formally demonstrate "fear," "uncertainty," and "doubt." But that just shows a misunderstanding of what "FUD" means, among other things. The post has very little in common with what anyone else with a balanced mind would call FUD. I also note that you're attempting to show argument from authority, where argument from authority is being explicitly rejected.
In recent years, "FUD" has primarily been associated with IBM's business strategy back in the 1980's and 1990's, when IBM was able to use its market position to cast reasonable doubt on the viability of competitors' offerings, and it was also used as a term when people perceived that Microsoft was seeking to cast Linux and open source software in a bad light a few years later. There is little that has been posted on this forum by anyone, pro- or contra- Rossi, that would be considered FUD, despite the fact that this accusation is often made by Rossi supporters.
Eric Walker, what's happening?
Why are you channeling Abdel Ramen? you sound like him, and you know he doesn't like woowoo stuff, it's forbidden in his cultS
Why are you channeling Abdel Ramen? you sound like him, and you know he doesn't like woowoo stuff, it's forbidden in his cultS
Keieueue, are you unwilling to respond to the points I've just made and instead reply with ad hom?
Nodoby debates with identified liars and malevolent social engineers, as their goal is to avoid discussing facts, by drowning them in noise and FUD
LENR has been known for 150+ years and proven numerous times, so your low-energy filibustering but concentrated FUD is just that: FUD filibustering
Let's take a look at the edits you added when realizing you didn't address and consolidate the hinge on which your FUD post revolves:
Quote
I also note that you're attempting to show argument from authority, where argument from authority is being explicitly rejected
...only it really isn't: let's take a look again at all the loaded ideas in the paragraph following this "explicit rejection", shall we?
QuoteAnother option, a better one, is to not delegate one's critical faculties to those guys, even if one thinks they might be right or partly right. But then you don't have the experts to tell you what to think, and if you're like most people neither do you have the training in the relevant subfields of chemistry or physics, or perhaps even any training in science at all, which might be helpful in assessing various strange claims that are made here and there. And there are some bland claims along with some very strange claims, but even the bland claims have subversive implications. So one is a little bit in a bind. Coming into the matter cold, one has to gradually build up a network of related propositions that one thinks are probable, at least in relative terms, as well as a network of people whose opinions one trusts
Quotephenomenology that one experiences as they become acquainted with the LENR field
Your role is to present yourself as a semi-knowledgeable dude ("this stuff is well over my head") who presents in a seemingly impartial way, how to have an opinion on the LENR thing for people without enough scientific knowledge to fuel their intuition. You pretend rejecting the cultist academia (1st paragraph), while only stealthily reinforcing its authority (2nd paragraph)
This, people, is how you manipulate people
Now, do you do it consciously, or not?
In both cases that's really sad
Some actual points to respond to.
Nodoby debates with identified liars and malevolent social engineers, as their goal is to avoid discussing facts, by drowning them in noise and FUD
LENR has been known for 150+ years and proven numerous times, so your low-energy filibustering but concentrated FUD is just that: FUD filibustering
I think you misunderstand my position entirely. Perhaps you did not see the long string of posts where I argued that LENR exists and has a real scientific foundation, and Thomas Clarke argued that any evidence I pointed to for this suggestion was inadequate. I am a supporter of LENR. You misunderstand my position, but it does not matter.
...only it really isn't: let's take a look again at all the loaded ideas in the paragraph following this "explicit rejection", shall we?
I do not know how you can see those highlighted terms as an argument of authority. What I'm saying is that someone who starts learning about the field encounters a lot of statements from authority figures in certain corners to the effect that LENR doesn't exist. Do you disagree with this?
Your role is to present yourself as a semi-knowledgeable dude ("this stuff is well over my head") who presents in a seemingly impartial way, how to have an opinion on the LENR thing for people without enough scientific knowledge to fuel their intuition. You pretend rejecting the cultist academia (1st paragraph), while only stealthily reinforcing its authority (2nd paragraph)
This, people, is how you manipulate people
Now, do you do it consciously, or not?
In both cases that's really sad
It's pretty entertaining that you take enough interest in my posts to capture multiple screenshots. That's never happened to me before.
Above you're arguing about me here, implying that I'm a bad person, rather than what I'm saying. That is ad hominem. Most will agree that ad hominem, except in certain very specific instances, doesn't do a whole lot to advance one's argument. But your remark that "You pretend rejecting the cultist academia (1st paragraph), while only stealthily reinforcing its authority (2nd paragraph)" should be expanded upon. How do the terms you've highlighted nominally reject cultist academia while stealthily reinforcing its authority?
Eric. If you really think K is a troll, you could try ignoring him.
Eric. If you really think K is a troll, you could try ignoring him.
Is it bad to try to draw someone out of trolldom into giving reasoned arguments?
