On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:01 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
The fact remains he is wrong. There are numerous cases where LENR has been > proved. Pons & Fleischmann produced excess heat in the famous 1989 > experiment let alone later. The diehards won't accept that. > I agree that Tom is wrong about LENR, but not as wrong as people think. When he points out weaknesses in prior experiment, often they are genuine weaknesses that should be remedied and that cast some amount of doubt on the conclusions of the experiment. I've walked Tom through the experiments by Mosier-Boss et al., and he has made many good points. I still find the SPAWAR experiments very interesting, and he does not. That's his prerogative. But if the SPAWAR team had had time to include a rigorous statistical analysis along the lines he thought was required in their papers, they would have had an even stronger experiment. No one died as a result of that discussion, and LENR did not go away. Tom does not believe that LENR can be shown to exist on the basis of a preponderance-of-evidence argument, by looking past various deficiencies and concluding from a wide range of experiments that there must be something despite any problems. That's a philosophical position on his part. He's looking for 99 percent certainty. Some will argue that there are LENR experiments that surpass this bar. I disagree. But I'm persuaded by a preponderance-of-evidence argument, unlike Tom, and so I don't need such certainty to continue to take interest. There is no need for Tom ever to accept that LENR exists. As a quality control guardian, he serves a very useful function. And he gets people thinking. Eric
