On May 10, 12:21Â*pm, PD wrote:
On May 10, 11:01Â*am, Mike wrote:





On May 10, 10:39Â*am, PD wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On May 8, 8:08�pm, PD wrote:
On May 8, 9:32�am, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 4:20�pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 2:44�pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 10:17�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:16�am, kenseto wrote:

ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.

So, Ken, let's recap your position for a moment.

Lets capture your position: Apparently you are so desperate that you
tried to swindle $22,000 from me!!!!!

I don't need your money, Ken, so desperation has nothing to do with
it.

Sure it has everything to do with it. You tried to swindle money from
me

How did I try to swindle you, Ken? I gave you a fee estimate for my
services. How is that a swindle. If you take your car to the shop, and
they tell you what it's going to cost to fix it, and the number is
more than you thought it was going to be, is that a swindle?

and at the same time gains the opportunity to sabotage my
experiment.

I'd gain nothing by sabotaging your experiments. If you thought they
were sabotaged, you could always repeat them with someone else's help.

The point is: It would be too late...you already got my money.

It's not your money, remember? It's the money of a private supporter.
Your supporter gives you money on the condition that you spend it
wisely on the skillful execution of your experiments -- and for that
you need an expert.

The first requirement a expert must fullfil is not to be prejudiced.

Mike

That's exactly right. I've already told Seto that I have no interest
in sabotaging his experiment, and it would serve me in absolutely no
positive way to do so.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you are hoping that my
experiments will failed. So I would be an idiot to hire you as the
expert to set up my experiments.

Ken Seto

I've also told him that a proper
experimentalist attitude is *not* being convinced of the theory being
tested, and that a true test of a theory is its ability to withstand
attempts to *disprove* it experimentally. The mark of a good
experiment is one that, after being published, it can be and is
repeated by independent researchers; if the experiment was well done,
then the results of the first experiment will be verified. It would
only besmirch the name of the experimentalist and all those involved
with the experiment if no one can reproduce the results of the
experimentalist. I have no interest in besmirching my name by
producing a crappy experiment which other experimenters would be
unable to replicate.

Seto, on the other hand, wants collaborators who believe strongly in
his theory and who will then go about trying to *prove* his theory
experimentally. He is going about science in precisely the wrong
manner. Because of this and because of the paranoia that prevents him
from going about it in the right way, he is in a state of permanent
vapor lock that has prevented him from making any progress in over a
decade.

The disagreement now isn't so much about the putative truth of his
ideas as it is about his crappy approach to doing science.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -