Re: Some Simple Questions

From: Charlie-Boo (chvol_at_aol.com)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: 18 Mar 2005 14:59:49 -0800

Randy Poe wrote:
> Charlie-Boo wrote:
> > 1. If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their
> > paper that introduces and explains the system there are no examples
> of
> > an X that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system cannot
> > produce X and the statement that it produces X is false?
>
> Suppose I have a machine that makes light bulbs. Let us
> suppose that it really *is* a machine that makes light bulbs,
> that I turned it on and saw light bulbs coming out the
> end.
>
> Now I give a presentation that introduces and explains
> my machine, but I never actually show it producing a
> light bulb. I never turn it on.
>
> Does that demonstrate that I no longer have a light-bulb
> producing machine?
>
> It might make you *suspicious* that I don't if I neglect
> to actually do a demonstration, but how in the world
> does it *prove* that it doesn't work?

I never said "proves" - quite the contrary, I explained that it is a
matter of probability or "confirming evidence". The author of the
paper presumably wants you to believe that their system works, but I
pointed out that to a logical person it suggests the opposite,

> You can take a perfectly
> good machine and give a presentation in which you
> neglect to turn it on. That does not turn the working
> machine into a non-working machine.

As I explained in detail, it makes no sense to do so and only suggests
that he can't. In any case, he has not demonstrated that it works.

My best guess is that right before the show he discovered that his
6-year-old nephew was tricking him and had been secretly putting light
bulbs on the conveyer belt, so he decided not to run the experiment
again. Why else would he not provide an exposition at such an
important symposium?

Would you be convinced?

C-B

> - Randy

Quantcast