Ron Kita <[email protected]> wrote: Here is the latest from Mark Gibbs. > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/20/cold-fusion-theory-or-fact/ >
This is the worst column he has written. He is a professional science writer yet he makes a hash of basic terminology! He does not understand the difference between an experimental observation, a hypothesis and a theory. He uses the word "theory" in the everyday language sense meaning "hypothesis" or "vague possibility." Many ignorant people opposed to science make the same mistake. Creationists often say that the theory of evolution is "only a theory" meaning (in professional terms) it is only an unproven hypothesis. In the profession sense of the word there is nothing doubtful about major theories such as the atomic theory, the germ theory, special relativity, or evolution. These things are as well established as laws such as Newton's first law (inertia). I believe that is called a "law" because there is nothing below it. As far as I know, there is no deeper understanding of inertia yet. When it can be explained I guess it will become a theory of inertia. In his previous column, Gibbs wanted to know what is the difference between cold fusion and LENR. He was petulant about that, demanding to know the difference. I didn't bother posting a message telling him they mean the same thing. He knows how to reach me or anyone else in this field. He could read Nagel's introduction to the terms "cold fusion" "LENR" "FP effect" etc. He is putting on an act. A petulant, 3-year-old act: "They won't tell me anything!" Like Mary Yugo he reads nothing and then complains that no one tells him what he wants to know. - Jed
