2015-01-10 15:01 GMT+01:00 Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> :
> That is the question we need to answer. Typically to validate or disprove > cold fusion you make sure to draw a representative sample of the old > results and do a serious examination to evaluate the evidences cold fusion controversy is not statistic, like clinical tests. It is "does it exists or never". the good techniques is to take the best paper, the best experiment and check if some theory compatible with old paradigm can explain the result. if there is assumption, they have to be noted for later. if it is luck it have to be noted. if misconduct, people involved have to be listed, usin criminal police methe to find motive and opportunity. If there is an artifact proposed it have to be checked in lab or already well characterized. after the best paper you check the second best paper. if you have a good list of positive result (negative are not interesting) the fact is confirmed. if you have clear erroneous papers (artifact or fraud) all other paper should be checked about the same default... for the uncertain papers where the result could be explained by an unproven conspiracy of bad luck, misconducts , incompetence or fraud, then the list of condition to ruleout all papers except 1 or two should be listed... the name of the conspirators, the incompetent, the fraudsters, the statistical improbability of the result conjugated, ... and this conspiracy theory should be evaluated ... is it credible. if it involve 2 conspirating researcher and 10% bad luck for 10 papers, then the theory is credible. if it is 0.0001% bad luck, or a 150 researcher fraud from 15 organization and 60 labs, then it is a conspiracy theory and should be laughable. I can safely say that challenging all LENr results fall into that category of laughable conspiracy theory, even if there is many non 99% proof results, even if there are proven frauds. existence of a phenomenon can only be rejected if all the results can safely be rejected by conjugated sigma, by conjugated incompetence or conjugated fraud conspiracy. this is very hard to justify such a theory when there are hundreds of average results which converge, where the probability of error/fraud is simply not extremely probable. a thousand of experiment which are 90% error/artifact/fraud, confirm the reality of the phenomenon at a huge sigma. to be honest I am even surprised that, hearing the critics that LENr scientist send to each other (peer review is without pity) there is not much seriously critical papers proving positively some artifacts... maybe because it was retracted immediately or reproduced without the artifact. contrary to the myth, negative results are useless for test of existence. it is not medicine. one Hiroshima prove the bomb, whatever did not explode in Los Alamos. a kid of 7 can understand it, but most PhD don't. this is where I speak of negative IQ from groupthink. I am also surprised that competent scientist are not aware of that basic logic and statistic... I judge there is a huge problem of education as any engineer know that (this is a problem know to reliability experts).
