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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
