Abd sez:
...
> It means nothing about the science itself. As Jed has pointed out, there is
> a definition of "mainstream" that's different. Judging "mainstream" has to
> do with publication by independent publishers who are dedicated to general
> science or to some particular science (or engineer
At 03:23 PM 2/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if
the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an
excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity.
In a way, this is correct. Wikipedia did classify Cold fusion as
Charles Hope wrote:
There is no mathematical definition of fringe.
There is, however, a conventional definition of what constitutes mainstream
science. It calls for professional scientists, replication, peer-review, a
high s/n ratio and various other things. According to this definition, cold
f
There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the
majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool
for judging such mass subjectivity.
Sent from my iPhone.
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:29, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Let me add that we are talking a
Let me add that we are talking about two different definitions of "fringe"
here. This is, in part, a dispute over semantics.
Cude is quite right about what he calls "fringe" and I agree that is a valid
use of the word. He is right that cold fusion fits that definition.
However, I think that in th
I do not want to beat this subject to death, but I would like to say what
while I agree with Joshua Cude here, we have to make a subtle distinction:
> And it’s not just Nature or SciAm. Science, all the APS journals, and most
> others would regard cold fusion as fringe science. It doesn’t matter
6 matches
Mail list logo
