4 ms·

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubio

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and (2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident. This is what the article is pointing out. The author is saying that in this case the cost of a false positive is so incredibly low and the benefit of a positive result is so high that we should be more willing to lower our guard a little more. These kind of quick reflex objections based on red flags will be useful 99.99% of the time, but major scientific advances only occur 0.01% of the time and so maybe humanity would benefit more if we loosened up a bit on our skepticism, especially surrounding the person or the field and focus more on the science.

jacquesm 11y ago
The quick reflex is an optimization, if it is true the proof will surface on its own strength, until then you can safely ignore it. After all, unless he's actually discovered something you're wasting your time. The burden of proof is rightly on the one making outrageous claims, there is no burden of sufferance because the positive benefits are so high. They'll be there regardless of whether one believes, after all, it works or it does not. See also: ubeam, theranos, moller and so on.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "The quick reflex is an optimization" That's not what's happening here. The optimal response in terms of saving time is to stay neutral until stronger proof arrives. What's happening instead is people being hostile to research being conducted in a way they disagree with, or by people they disagree with. That negativity takes energy.
rdtsc 11y ago
There is almost no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. You could watch tv instead or go for a walk than listen to him and you'd spend your time better. Who he is matters and his past matters as well. I (some no name from the Internet) can't walk in to a public University and say, I want to be a physics professor. Sure, there is a 0.000001% I maybe be qualified and be a great professor. But my background doesn't warrant them even listning to me talk about it. They'd have as good a chance finding a professor by picking randomly from a phone book. Same thing here with this guy. > but major scientific advances only occur 0.01% ...so maybe humanity would benefit more if we loosened up a bit Yeah sure. We can loosen up a bit and maybe give NASA or some college professors random grants to go study this in more detail. As far as Rossi, we'd probably have a better chance discovering cold fusion just by taking a walk and stumbling on it. So no, in his case, based on what I've seen, it is not worth loosing up.
- rdlecler1 11y ago
  In this case there has been some independent verification of an anomaly. If the rest of the world took the attitude that you did there would be no follow up and we would base all of our decisions on the scientists reputation. That's bad science and bad for science.
lmm 11y ago
This sounds like a case of "Pascal's mugging" - the idea that we should be willing to pay for a very small chance of an extremely good outcome, because the expected value is high. There are arguments over how to resolve it, but taking it literally certainly leads to bad outcome. There is a virtually limitless supply of cranks claiming to have cold fusion, and I would bet a lot of money that none of them do.
- rdlecler1 11y ago
  Since there is <50% chance that this will pan out, then you would be making a good bet. Also, 99% of startups fail from inception, so according to your risk-reward tolerance you'd want to avoid investing your time or money in early stage startups as well. Scientific advances are made when someone accomplishes what others thought was impossible. I haven't seen anything in the physics to indicate that you'd be breaking (known) laws of physics. It seems that this article was written for people such as yourself.

jacquesm 11y ago

The quick reflex is an optimization, if it is true the proof will surface on its own strength, until then you can safely ignore it. After all, unless he's actually discovered something you're wasting your time. The burden of proof is rightly on the one making outrageous claims, there is no burden of sufferance because the positive benefits are so high. They'll be there regardless of whether one believes, after all, it works or it does not. See also: ubeam, theranos, moller and so on.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "The quick reflex is an optimization" That's not what's happening here. The optimal response in terms of saving time is to stay neutral until stronger proof arrives. What's happening instead is people being hostile to research being conducted in a way they disagree with, or by people they disagree with. That negativity takes energy.

rdtsc 11y ago

There is almost no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. You could watch tv instead or go for a walk than listen to him and you'd spend your time better. Who he is matters and his past matters as well. I (some no name from the Internet) can't walk in to a public University and say, I want to be a physics professor. Sure, there is a 0.000001% I maybe be qualified and be a great professor. But my background doesn't warrant them even listning to me talk about it. They'd have as good a chance finding a professor by picking randomly from a phone book. Same thing here with this guy. > but major scientific advances only occur 0.01% ...so maybe humanity would benefit more if we loosened up a bit Yeah sure. We can loosen up a bit and maybe give NASA or some college professors random grants to go study this in more detail. As far as Rossi, we'd probably have a better chance discovering cold fusion just by taking a walk and stumbling on it. So no, in his case, based on what I've seen, it is not worth loosing up.

rdlecler1 11y ago
In this case there has been some independent verification of an anomaly. If the rest of the world took the attitude that you did there would be no follow up and we would base all of our decisions on the scientists reputation. That's bad science and bad for science.

lmm 11y ago

This sounds like a case of "Pascal's mugging" - the idea that we should be willing to pay for a very small chance of an extremely good outcome, because the expected value is high. There are arguments over how to resolve it, but taking it literally certainly leads to bad outcome. There is a virtually limitless supply of cranks claiming to have cold fusion, and I would bet a lot of money that none of them do.

rdlecler1 11y ago
Since there is <50% chance that this will pan out, then you would be making a good bet. Also, 99% of startups fail from inception, so according to your risk-reward tolerance you'd want to avoid investing your time or money in early stage startups as well. Scientific advances are made when someone accomplishes what others thought was impossible. I haven't seen anything in the physics to indicate that you'd be breaking (known) laws of physics. It seems that this article was written for people such as yourself.