Tony Smith wrote:

>>> Science need evidence, so where is it?
>> 
>> That was exactly my question, for your supposedly scientific statement
>> about the probability of something being found tomorrow that you don't
>> consider today. It wasn't me who claimed something, it was you, and I
>> asked you to back this claim up /scientifically/. Which you didn't, and
>> this post continues not to back it up scientifically. 
>> 
>> My point was that with this statement you left the scientific realm. So
>> far, all everybody (mainly you and Russell) has said in that respect is
>> that it seems, using ones gut, that 
> 
> Ok, let's recap.  More tedium.  

I really ask myself what you're trying to avoid when writing so many
tedious emails :)

> I said the laws of thermodymanics are unlikely to be broken anytime soon.

If you had written that, I might or might not have answered. But that's
just too hypothetical. Here's what you really wrote (on May 27, including
the quoted text for context):

-------------------------------------
>> My guess is the energy used by the microwave device far exceeds any
>> released energy right?
> 
> So far, yes.
 
And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
-------------------------------------

No reference to thermodynamics here at all. There are many processes that
use a "starter" energy and after starting the process release much more
energy than was used to start the process. This doesn't have to be in
violation of any existing theories, including the "laws" of thermodynamics.

> I saw your response to that and couldn't decide whether you agreed with
> me or not.  I read this current response and have come away no wiser. 

I agree with your opinion, but I wanted to make clear that this is an
opinion as unscientific as any of the other "dreamer" opinions. It is an
opinion, not science.

> I'm not sure how to scientifically defend a statement which is, in
> essence, simply saying "NO, but a very tiny maybe".  What the 'maybe'
> is, I've no idea.  Neither does anyone else (unless you consider the
> zero-point techno-babble energy nutters). 

Correct. There's no way to defend this scientifically (or at least not yet,
but IMO never will be, at least not without significantly modifying how we
practice "science"). That's why it's not science; it's an (unscientific)
opinion about science. This distinction seems relevant to me, especially in
this context.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist