Originally posted by erobitha
View Post
The experiment was repeated, and the results were entirely different. That's the whole point of my post. Two years and four months later, the experiment was repeated (with the variations that I have already mentioned) and the results were completely different.
That suggests either the experiments were too different to be valid, or that the material being tested had changed.
You're misusing the concept of replication.
When different results are achieved in experimental science, the scientists involved seek an explanation. I'm still seeking clarification about Eastaugh's own tests, but I may or may not get there.
Think of it this way.
If you stick a thermometer in your tea and it reads 140 degrees and two hours later you repeat the experiment and it now reads 70 degrees, does it mean your first reading was bogus? Does it mean your methodology was flawed? Does it mean your thermometer is broken?
Or does it mean your cup of tea went cold?
What you seem to be telling me is that the experiments must have been flawed because the results couldn't be replicated, when of course the real explanation could be your tea went cold.
And by the way, your straw arguments about 'proof' are wide of the mark. Baxendale never claimed it was 'proof,' and scientists seldom use such terminology.
He thought it strongly suggested a fairly recent hoax but acknowledge that if Smith could find a Victorian ink that behaved in a similar manner, the results he witnessed could have an alternative explanation.
The trouble is, no one has found a Victorian ink that 'easily' dissolves 103 years later, and Dr. Eastaugh, who had Smith's full confidence, said that the solubility of old and new inks would be indistinguishable after 5-6 years. He said something along the lines of "The most we can say is that the ink was probably entirely dry."
Meanwhile, I'm done with the ink. It's clear that you and Ike aren't interested in serious inquiry, so if I carry on, I'll carry on solo.
Leave a comment: