At 05:22 PM 12/3/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
2. In theory papers I do not recall seeing a section titled
predictions or something like that.
To be fair, in LENR, so little is known with solidity about what's
going on that even if a theory is correct in general outlines, it
could be difficult
At 02:45 PM 12/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simon is interested in the process of closure. And what he comes
to with Undead Science is that there can be an apparent closure
where an apparent scientific consensus arises, but there is life
after death, hence, undead
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There *was* an apparent scientific consensus. That isn't to be
denied. But was there a *real* scientific consensus. It's obvious
that there was not. That would be a consensus rigorously based on
scientific principles, and such a consensus would be far more widely
On 12/03/2009 04:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Theories are a dime a dozen in this business. As far as I know none of
them makes useful predictions -- or even testable predictions! So they
are useless. Heck, they aren't even theories, just speculation. A
theory is not viable unless it can be
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Theories are a dime a dozen in this business. As far as I know none
of them makes useful predictions -- or even testable predictions! . . .
If I recall correctly, Hagelstein's theory based on phonon coupling
to the lattice made testable predictions. However, that
At 05:42 PM 12/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I meant to say:
Simon is interested in the process of closure. And what he comes
to with Undead Science is that there can be an apparent closure
where an apparent scientific consensus arises, but there is life
after death, hence, undead science.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simon is interested in the process of closure. And what he comes
to with Undead Science is that there can be an apparent closure
where an apparent scientific consensus arises, but there is life
after death, hence, undead science.
This is like saying there is no
I meant to say:
Simon is interested in the process of closure. And what he comes
to with Undead Science is that there can be an apparent closure
where an apparent scientific consensus arises, but there is life
after death, hence, undead science.
This is like saying there is no apparent
At 06:01 PM 11/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simon is a *sociologist,* Jed, not a chemist or physicist. Opinions
(especially collective opinions) and process are what the book is
about, not cold fusion. Or calorimetry.
If it is about opinions then we can conclude
At 09:09 PM 11/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
If it is about opinions then we can conclude that opinions have no
bearing on cold fusion. Plus we can conclude that sociologists are
unqualified to write about calorimetry, and they make fools of
themselves when they try.
To put it more
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simon is a *sociologist,* Jed, not a chemist or physicist. Opinions
(especially collective opinions) and process are what the book is
about, not cold fusion. Or calorimetry.
If it is about opinions then we can conclude that opinions have no
bearing on cold fusion.
I wrote:
If it is about opinions then we can conclude that opinions have no bearing
on cold fusion. Plus we can conclude that sociologists are unqualified to
write about calorimetry, and they make fools of themselves when they try.
To put it more charitably, I guess what I am saying is that
On Nov 25, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Very few labs have the ability to even attempt to examine the
correlation accurately, and the studies which have been done have
error bars which I think are too large to establish the actual
mechanism by which the
Harry Veeder wrote:
Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove
something is impossible, only that it is possible.
Couldn't you say the amount of excess heat proves it is impossible to be
chemical in origin?
I guess I should have said 'you cannot prove something
Nothing to write home about:
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
[This is very sloppy thinking. Here is a message I sent to Labinger.]
Subject: Cold fusion is not a negative claim
Greetings. I discovered your paper: Controversy
in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a Negative? -- The
Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion. I have
often heard your central argument.
At 09:33 AM 11/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
This is a common straw man
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The paper, to its credit, mentions the heat-helium correlation. The
authors then attempt to toss cold water on it by raising, again,
general theoretical objections, and appear to be unaware that this
correlation exists across many
History of Science
Controversy in Chemistry: How Do You Prove a
Negative?The Cases of Phlogiston and Cold Fusion**
Jay A. Labinger* and Stephen J. Weininger*
http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf
I think this article deserves a closer look. It
relies heavily on
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I think this article deserves a closer look. It relies heavily on Simon, a
very good source.
I *loath* Simon's book. Hate it, hate it, hate it! He looks at people's
opinions and counts papers instead of evaluating calorimetry. Meta-analyses
are mostly bunk, and they
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear
reaction findings. It arises from an assumption that it would be necessary
to prove that cold fusion is truly impossible in order to convince the cold
fusion researchers to give up.
Right.
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 10:48:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Labinger paper
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is a common straw man argument made against the low-energy nuclear
reaction findings. It arises from an assumption
22 matches
Mail list logo
