= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on ...so did we now get cold fusion to work or what? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (30)
Wrong event.
If someone tells me that they constructed a perpetual motion machine out of chains, cranks and pulleys, I do not expect to update my estimate of whether such a device is likely. I do however, expect to update my estimate of the probability of whether taking this person seriously is worthwhile.
If a serious scientist publishes an earnest paper claiming a revolutionary novel effect (like the superluminal neutrino paper last year), I would update my probability of this effect being real, until further information is available.
Rossi matches the pattern of a con artist, and none of the linked paper's authors appear to be experts in debunking clever schemes. After reading the paper I have lower opinion of the paper authors, so yes, I have updated.
I agree with you about Rossi.
However, if someone makes the perpetual motion claim, unless you update your probability that they are worth taking seriously to 0%, you should also update your probability of the perpetual motion machine.
I don’t need to estimate “worth taking seriously” to 0, just “too low to bother”. (E.g., the update to my “perpetual motion machin probability” would be lower than the margin of error of my estimates.)
If you do, then you are prone to a version of the Pascal mugging attack: given enough false claims, you start taking them seriously.