Michel Jullian writes: >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.
Well, what is good and what is bad is a matter of opinion and scientific judgement. The system works by free exchange of information. Everyone is allowed to publish results, and everyone else is free to judge for themselves. People can write reviews of the work, the way Storms has done, but nobody hands out grades in academic research, and no one should be allowed to act as an arbitor or censor. (Least of all someone running an on-line library, such as me!) Anyway, a person who would try to replicate the so-so, marginal experiments is not qualifed to work in this field and will not contribute anything no matter what. In other words, if you have to depend on others to tell you what is a good result, you are not >To be able to concentrate on good experiments, the bad ones must be identified >I am afraid . . . This is like saying that to succeed in business you should identify good investment opportunities. True, but if you are not qualified to do that -- or good at doing that -- no one can teach you the knack or give you a set of guidelines beyond the obvious textbook stuff. To participate in science, business, art or any other field that depends on the free exchange of information and competition, you must think for yourself. > . . . including when the people who performed them are close friends, that's > where it gets hard. I do not see what relevance that could possibly have. All of the top electrochemists in the world such as Bockris, Fleischmann, Will and Oriani, have known one another well for decades. They are either good friends or old enemies. It is a small field. - Jed
