On second thought the weeding would have to be done now, otherwise people will try for ever to replicate the so-and-so experiment without success, or worse bringing in their own sources of errors and thinking they have succeeded.
To be able to concentrate on good experiments, the bad ones must be identified I am afraid, including when the people who performed them are close friends, that's where it gets hard. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) > 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 >> >
