Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:
> you are exaggerating, this is absolutely insignifiant- . . . > I disagree. As I said, it is highly unprofessional. I have never heard of a professional scientist doing anything like this except at MIT when they deliberately added data points to cover up the excess heat in 1989. That was a serious violation of scientific ethics. This may not be a serious violation, because it seems pointless. But it is an outlandish thing to do. It is inexplicable. A graphic joke having no relation to the results. > Never, ever, would I call this a joke. It is not even slightly funny. It is more like a sign of mental illness. > It is not nice to say ugly words re persons onthe frontline of LENR, do > not forget we are kibitzes only. > Not nice?!? What is that supposed to mean in this context? It is "not nice" to publish fake data. It is an academic "sin" as Parkhomov himself said. It hurts his credibility. Heck, it practically destroys his credibility. I can't imagine why you defend this sort of thing. If I had published this data on LENR-CANR.org, I would remove it immediately, and I would post a message saying the author publicly admitted the data was fraudulent. Even though it does not seem to affect the conclusion, the act of inserting fake data is in itself unacceptable. Besides, how can we believe the missing data showed what he claimed? If he nonchalantly inserts fake data, why should we trust the fake data more-or-less traces what actually happened? - Jed
