blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > A clear ambiguity exists when it comes to cold fusion and whether or not > it's true. >
Not if you believe in the scientific method. An effect that has been replicated thousands of time in hundreds of laboratories at high signal to noise ratios exists, by definition. There is no other standard of truth in experimental science. Experiments, peer-review, replication and the other mechanisms of science sometimes fail, but they would never fail on the scale necessary to make cold fusion a mistake, or even questionable. You might as well expect that every airline pilot in the sky will make a drastic mistake and crash every airplane in a single day. People make mistakes and institutions fail, but never on that scale. There are other standards in a court of law, or in the mass media. You might take a poll of scientists, for example. But science is not a popularity contest. It does not matter how many people believe something -- or don't believe it. Facts are facts, even if no one believes them or knows about them. Ohm's law was true before it was discovered, and it will remain true after our species goes extinct. If you can't see that, you're blind. > I doubt you have read the experimental literature. I do not know any scientifically literate person who has and yet who disagrees with me, except Britz, Steve Jones and Shanahan. - Jed
