Pass? Fail? A -excellent? E -poor?
Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > 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 >>> >> >
