Jed, I do want LENR to be true. I have said that. In fact, because I consider such possibility so important that I want it to be true and verifiable and not something we desire to be true. This why my high standards.
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I would take LENR seriously. Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind methods would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY. It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with the turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that it would be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and light bulbs. This is a self evident statement and nothing controversial or unreasonable. If LENR can be achieved by some scientists, once in a while, here and there around the world, with results that can be explained by some observational uncertainty and so on, the field would remain if not pseudo-science at least extremely controversial and a curiosity and for sure it would have no role in helping humanity in solving fundamental practical problems. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you >> that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true >> is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite). >> > > >> I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life >> from people making claims that were not followed by real actions and >> delivery that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for >> me. >> > > You are not being skeptical when you demand that "every amateur > enthusiast" reproduce something before you believe it. This demand is > unprecedented. It is irrational. It cannot be fulfilled in the case of cold > fusion. > > I suggest you rethink that. > > I do not know whether to call that wishful thinking or an absurd fantasy, > but it is not normal. I suspect you are making up unreasonable demands > because at some level you do not want to believe cold fusion is real. > People who have a "strong desire to believe" something to not erect > barriers to prevent themselves from seeing the data. They do not make up > nonsensical conditions that must be met before they will believe. > > Your standards remind me of a task set by a fairytale king, given to the > knight errant suitors of his daughter. You want the cold fusion researchers > to kill the dragon 100 leagues away and return before nightfall. It is > lyrical but not science. > > - Jed > >
