Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a > testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great > invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. >
I still disagree. Other discoveries, such as high temperature superconductors and fusion in the sun were accepted without a theory. Theory has never been a criterion for belief in the past. Furthermore, even if we had a theory, skeptics at the DoE and elsewhere would reject it, just as they have rejected hundreds of peer-reviewed, high-sigma replications. These people are not playing by the rules. A theory or at least a model would help researchers control the reaction. This, in turn, would help convince more people it is real. So a theory is desirable. In your previous message you also wrote: "When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." A practical device has never been taken as a criteria for belief either. Countless breakthroughs were impractical at first, sometimes for years, sometimes for decades. Examples include aviation, electricity, electric motors, computers and photography, which could not be "fixed" at first, so the image darkened and vanished after a while. Some people did reject photography, claiming it does not exist. They continued to reject it until chemists learned to stop development and fix the image, so the photography could be exhibited outside the lab. Along the same lines, if we could demonstrate cold fusion devices outside the lab it would help. But we can't so you are just going to have to believe in experimental science and the scientific method. - Jed
