Anyway, I would summarize the situation as "doubts melting away"- the process is real and important. and on the way to become a technology. It has NO theory yet, OK - but which variant of cold fusion has a first rate (i.e. one that predicts what to do)- usable theory? Obviously development is always risky.Cousin Jed could tell more about the risks in early aviation- for example.
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> He [Levi] emphasizes that the experiment must be carefully >> >> prepared with a very strict protocol to avoid any doubt. >> >> >> >> And implies that there needs to be a further replication. If he's so >> convinced, why the need for further testing? >> > > There is always a need for further testing. Seriously. Getting back to my > favorite example, the Wrights proved they could stagger off the ground and > barely fly in a semi-controlled fashion in December 1903. In 1904 they > proved they could do it again sometimes, but often they proved only that > they could crash spectacularly or that in hot weather with low air pressure > they could not fly. It took more tests to prove to non-expert observers that > the first flight was not a fluke or a carnival stunt. (The Wrights > themselves were expert enough to judge the first 4 flight tests on Dec. 17 > as complete success, but they were the only experts in the world on that > day.) > > In the case of Rossi, many loopy skeptical objections have been raised, but > one or two plausible ideas that might explain away the results have been > proposed. It would be good to disprove these objections by doing a long run. > We are not accusing Rossi of being dishonest by asking for something like a > 10-hour run. That is just dotting the i and crossing the t. > > > >> Again, this sounds like future tense -- Levi thinks this still needs to >> be verified. At least, that's how I read this. >> > > Well . . . Maybe he is just talking the way a careful academic scientist > talks. Or maybe he thinks, as I do, that this is such an astounding > breakthrough it calls for additional verification. It does NOT call for > "extraordinary proof" as skeptics love to say (quote the "Cosmos" TV > series). More ordinary proof is fine. > > Rossi told me that Levi et al. are doing additional tests. That's good. > They may not report on them for some time. I see no need to rush. > > > >> No, not in the least. His statements are thoroughly hedged. He's >> obviously not accusing Rossi of anything, but he sure doesn't sound >> "totally convinced" to me. >> > > I think that he and other observers who have seen the test are convinced, > but you have to calibrate his way of talking. Academic scientists tend to > hedge everything they say so much it sometimes sounds as if they lack > confidence. It is a style of speaking. You don't say "I am sure of X." You > put it in the passive voice and wrap it in semantic cotton wool: "strong > indications with reliable instrumentation that give a reliable approximation > within the known error bounds that X is highly probable . . ." > > - Jed > >
