Much is made about the lack of proof when trying to place Andrea Rossi’s eCat on the reality spectrum. In a scientific sense, that is oh-so-true for those without the privilege of being on the inside of things. No scientist should take anecdotal evidence as word and, since we tend to look to them for guidance, it’s no surprise that their objections are sounded loud and clear. In their business, nothing else matters but absolute, bomb-proof facts (doubly so for something labelled as ‘junk science’).
In a recent post I suggested that a scientist’s conclusion should be that there is insufficient data for a conclusion but somehow the proclamations from some sound like accusations of fraud. Lost in this argument we can forget that, in the real world, scientists are used as one tool in the mix of evidence in our justice system. People are in prisons despite scientists swearing on their behalf, certain in their belief that one thing is true instead of another. In the real world, in the absence of data good enough to result in scientific consensus, we weigh the evidence and think for ourselves. Which begs the question: For the person in the street, what is that evidence?
In an effort to keep eCatNews.com objective, I will not believe until proof is provided. I suggest that readers thinking about investing time and/or money do the same. However, honesty goes both ways and I have to admit that the weight of circumstantial evidence ‘against’ is weak. Most points are easy to explain away, should you wish to do so. When balancing this against the circumstantial evidence ‘for’ it appears to me that we would be foolish to bet against it being real (even as caution holds us back from investing our life savings ‘for’).
Thankfully, most of us do not have to make that call as October is near. For those wanting to take a risk, look at the evidence using the above list as a guide and decide how the scales would tilt in a court of law.<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>