Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We assume here that in general LENR researchers are competent overall. > One should just accept this as a ground rule. . . . > Yes. They are professionals, after all. Before they did cold fusion no one thought they were not experts. That is not to say that every single professional is competent, but statistically most of them are, and when you get a group this large it is certain that several will be. > It's simply that one can't get away with a facile statement to the effect > that "there is no reliable evidence that the tritium findings are not > contamination, etc." and expect it to advance anyone's understanding. It's > just a dogmatic assertion, since there are specific reasons to think it's > wrong. > Exactly. > It's fine if the burden of evidence elsewhere would not permit one to > refer to the LENR tritium findings. The point is that the burden of > evidence *here* allows one to do so . . . > Actually, in a valid forum for science, this should always be the rule. It is outlandish to claim that there might a problem with standard instruments and methods when used by a large group of experts. That is true whether you are talking about measuring tritium, or heat, rainfall, blood pressure or any other physical property. A person who says that such widespread, long established techniques are not reliable has a heavy burden of proof. To start with, you have to point out specific errors made by specific people. No skeptic has done this. Morrison and a few others tried, but they failed. A brand new type of measurement, or one made with an experimental new type of instrument, may be open to question. Measurements by amateurs with homemade instruments are always open to question! - Jed
