Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:



I suspect you may be right, but I mustn't let my prejudice in favour of
the Scientific Method cloud my objectivity.

The Scientific Method is based upon being sceptical of any claim which is
made without backing by suitable, assessible, evidence. In this case that
would mean some mix of theoretical explanation which tied in with
established physics, measurements, or listening tests carried out in a way
that can be used to determine the reliabilty of the results.

So you keep saying :-)

Don't you think there's something uncritical (unscientific even?!) about
the requirement that new hypotheses comply with accepted theories and
verified measurements?

In the absence of the above, any claim may simply be reagarded as what
academics call "tosh". Sorry for the use of such technical jargon. :-)


I suppose 'academic' is in my job description somewhere - buggered if I
could say 'it's tosh' with any certainty. 'Weird' would be my first port
of call :-)

If you accept the premises of Quantum Physics, nothing is actually
impossible, just very very unlikely...like PWB's products working?

I doubt that the above interpretation of QM has much to do with this...
:-)


You just never do know now ...

Rob