Rossi devotees are always advising everyone to wait. What does that even mean? Personally I am quite confident that Rossi will never make any positive contributions to society of any sort other than some ironic entertainment for some people. So what am I supposed to wait for? If it is a great energy invention, I am willing and fully expecting to wait forever, because it isn’t going to happen any sooner than that. Meanwhile, should the world stop trying to solve its energy problems and instead wait for Rossi to ride in on his white horse? If that is anyone’s belief, they are criminally insane. But insane or not, feel free to wait all you want.
interested observer
Member
- Member since Feb 10th 2017
- Last Activity:
Posts by interested observer
-
-
People around here like to throw around the term pathological skeptic. One can debate about what constitutes pathological skepticism. The remaining Rossi supporters here invite the use of the term pathological believer. Thinking Rossi is the real deal in the face of 8 years of outrageous lies and nonsense is unquestionably pathological.
-
I wonder if the remaining Rossi believers are actually suffering from anosognosia. It would explain alot.
-
It almost sounds religious, the way you describe it. Andrea Rossi as the second son of God. A better version of Jesus, because this time shit actually works. Sacrificing his life to save humankind. Nice thought!
Cheers,
JB
You seem to have captured your own view perfectly. I guess self-awareness is the first step toward enlightenment. Good luck to you.
-
Yes indeed, WCG. We are all free to embrace whatever opinion we like. Furthermore, we can form those opinions based on the facts on hand or base them on wishful thinking that runs counter to common sense and the evidence in front of our faces. It is indeed our choice to make.
-
WCG, as one of the much-maligned skeptics here, I feel particularly qualified to observe that if you consider Mizuno’s work to be copied from (or even inspired by) Rossi’s, then you understand nothing at all about either.
-
I am still serious about Rossi because nobody succeeded in debunking him completely.
Out of curiosity, what in your view would constitute debunking Rossi completely? Give an example.
-
"When he says he is "very, very close" there is reason to believe he is actually very close."
And what, pray tell, would that reason be?
-
I am absolutely convinced that (almost) nobody in the scientific community takes seriously his theory.
For some people here that is the strongest possible endorsement.
-
The way I read Franks comments on ECW I think even he doesn't believe Rossi anymore. Rossi's only true believers left are conspiracy theorists, science illiterates, and word salad specialists.
Generally, those are not three distinct groups.
-
Well, stranger things have happened. My father was a very skilled cabinetmaker and was once asked to advise an orthopaedic surgeon on improving the standard ways of fixing metal plates to bone.
In that context I would consider your father to be an expert.
-
"A good boss listens to all opinions in the organization from the cleaner right up to brains of the operation."
Listen - yes - but only an insane boss considers the opinion of the cleaner to be as valuable as that of the brains of the operation. There is, after all, such a thing as an expert, i.e., a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Or is the hospital janitor also to be consulted on your brain surgery?
-
You say "we". Do You consider Yourself a proper scientist ?
That spotlights one of the most interesting aspects of “the LENR community”: it is mostly composed of individuals without scientific training or experience. So when Google solicits input from the community, are they really hoping to hear from people whose expertise consists of whatever information they have gleaned from the Internet, or are they really hoping to hear from actual LENR experts? There are assuredly many crackpots in “the community “, but I doubt many of them are actual LeNR researchers.
-
I have no dream about Rossi's technology ever doing anything but languishing in his lab - or perhaps his kitchen. However, I know that his technology is real and works.
With that one statement it is clear that there is utterly no reason to take anything you say seriously.
-
I don’t know if there should be “forbidden topics” on this forum but I should think that part of the mission here is to dissuade people from the notion that LENR is crackpot science. If that is the case, then the operative principle is that if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
-
It is very difficult to take someone seriously about LENR if they are also arguing that Rossi is legitimate. Not accusing anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits..
-
Fair enough. If he got rid of the word "maybe" in this one selection, would that make the poll more legitimate to you?
"Never! Maybe he had some small results initially, but what what he has been claiming in the last few years is essentially fraudulent."
No, that would be even worse. The poll is supposed to ask for people’s view of Rossi. None of the options allow for the opinion that he has never had any legitimate results and no maybes about it. You may think otherwise and therefore that option is reasonable for you. However, if Mats really wants to sample all opinions, he needs an option that Rossi is and always has been a fraud. There are plenty of people who hold that view and this poll ignores them.
-
“I read Mats selections again, and they cover all the options fairly well.“
For you, perhaps. But there are many of us who would not say that Rossi may have had something legitimate at one point or another. As far as I am concerned, his big splash in 2011 was obviously a fraud and things went south from there. So if Mats actually wants to gauge the opinions of people, he needs an option that categorically states that Rossi never had anything real. I know that former believers can’t face saying that since it is embarrassing but if the shoe fits...
-
If we are going to start pointing out logical fallacies, the fact that there are things that were widely thought to be false that ended up being true provides absolutely zero support for whether something else is true. In other words, it is really tiresome reading about the Wright Brothers in discussions of cold fusion.
-
Your redefinition seems reasonable. I’m still not convinced that the people you discuss above should be branded as pathological skeptics, which in my thinking has a fairly specific meaning. But without a doubt the behavior you describe is quite pathological.
