Eric Walker wrote:
your idiosyncratic notion of "science as innocence until guilt is proven,"
AA wrote: You are suffering from Bob's disease. I never sad that. What I said was I don't automatically assume the man is wrong until the facts are in, unlike you.
Ok — your clarification makes sense. My apologies for misconstruing your original position. I was not intending to quote you literally, but I see also that it was confusing in this regard and that my summary was not what you intended.
Which does not bear directly on my valid point that you are advising people to adopt an inverse scientific attitude in approaching Rossi.
You also wrote, "You [Eric] have a very strange view of science. Normally it works by someone making a hypothesis: they work on that to make it a theory: if over time no objections are found it becomes a law." This does not rescue your inverse scientific position, as I have explained above, nor do you explain why I have a strange view of science. I would be grateful if you could do so.