So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?

[MarkE]

...as long as the outcome is likely.  If the outcome is not likely (or exceptionally unlikely) then you are always wasting your time.  Your "learning about mistakes" argument is a) moving the goalposts somewhat and b) has exactly the same decision making flaw as the idea that every idea from someone who meets your criteria for "brightness" and "diligence" absolutely necessitates attention.

Are you conflating:  The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation?    You might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists.  Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own.  They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them.  They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.

[profitis]

My argument never said  wealthy labs are exclusive privy to 2lot violations @sarkeizen,my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot vs peasants who stumble onto 2lot violations.thus markdansie's 90% will be mostly wealthy government labs yes.

[profitis]

We can even include 1lot violations in my argument.virtualy nil peasants will be able to detect a 1lot violation but a government lab will have the machines to be able to do this.government labs can go very very far with theses freaky phenomena.they're licenced to play with shit that you and me will be thrown in jail for being in posession thererof

[sarkeizen]

The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation?

You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again.  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   

You might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists.  Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own.  They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them.  They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.

One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.

Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people.  Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate.   So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.

Next?

[sarkeizen]

my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot

Yay you are learning to actually make an argument.  Too bad you have already asserted that people on their own are almost there.  You claim that anyone can easily demonstrate an entirely unambiguous 2LOT violation.  If true then these labs have all already found them.  However this leads to a problem of zero published research.  The amount of money fed into research also increases the number papers produced.  No 2LOT violation papers.  So under your assumptions we need to at least slightly discredit the idea that 2LOT violations are as easy as you say.