On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cude has added that he is not "convinced that nuclear reactions in cold > fusion experiments have produced measurable heat." From my point of view > that puts him in the category of creationists who are not convinced of the > evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old, or that people did not > ride on dinosaurs. > Points of view clearly differ. From my point of view, being convinced by flaky evidence like Rossi's puts you in the category of creationists, who believe in a young earth because of scripture. And I think the similarity favors my point of view. In both cold fusion and creationism, you have a small group of fringe "scientists" who adopt an idea in which they have important self-interest, and try desperately to prove its reality. And in both cases the idea is completely contrary to the virtually unanimous opinion of mainstream science. And in both cases, you have the fringe group claiming a conspiracy against it by the mainstream. > > The evidence for cold fusion heat far beyond the limits of chemistry > overwhelming. If you do not believe it, you are not a scientist. Period. > So, we have someone who is not a scientist, who doesn't know that the temperature of steam can exceed 100C at atmospheric pressure, saying that vast majority of people who do science are not scientists. But let's look at scientific progress in the last 22 years. In the field of cold fusion: score zero. In fields outside cold fusion: too much to list of course, but perhaps the sequencing of the human genome by what you call non-scientists tops the list. > The evidence for tritium and commensurate helium is not quite as > overwhelming but I have never seen any rational reason to doubt it. I > wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Cude to provide one. > For me, the absence of a reason to doubt, is not a reason to believe. And I am not holding my breath waiting for a rational reason to believe the claims.
