OK this sounds more sensible, we have gone even beyond the stage of a hypothesis (I myself have witnessed such bad CF experiments). CF presented in this more realistic light, mistakes and all, looks more like real science. A lot of weeding would have to be done, but that's another story. Best is to concentrate on the experiments which are thought/known to work, and validate them. Ideally they should pass the Earthtech test, after which they could go and claim the Randi prize without further ado.
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) > Edmund Storms wrote: > >>Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some >>people doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. > > Right. And this is like saying that some programmers write programs > with bugs, some doctors accidentally kill patients, and some people > drive their cars into trees by accident. People in all walks of life > make mistakes. > > >>This is not the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go >>back to the lab and try again. > > Right again. And programmers correct their mistakes. (Or at > Microsoft, they declare that the mistake is a feature, they charge > extra for it, and then they charge you to get rid of it.) > > >>In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole idea. That >>is the issue! Cold fusion needs to treated just like any other >>science, mistakes and all. > > Exactly. Just because some drivers sometimes run into trees, you do > not declare that no one can drive, or that cars do not exist. > > I know perfectly well that some CF researchers are wrong, but it is > inconceivable that all of them are wrong. The two assertions must not > be confused. > > - Jed >
