On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> > It makes no sense to demand "a testable theory or a demonstrably practical > device." Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery > and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions the > theory comes first.) > Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not about science, it's about technology and making something that works because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized. > Gibbs is putting the cart before the horse. He is not the only one. Many > professional scientists who should know better are also saying this. > The only thing that matters when it comes to getting recognition and funding and changing the world is the cart. If we have a working cart that gets us where we want to go then we can wait on finding out what's pulling us around. And the need for theory is as Storms pointed out: A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. Until we can bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. Then again, perhaps "theory" is the wrong word ... perhaps "technique" would be more appropriate. [m]
