One reason for the scientist, like for Elforsk boss, is not taking risk to be wrong but very probably they already know what they are (right or wrong), and that they did not take the opportunity to flee the debate is an information.
If the test was a flop, the boss of Elforsk would have said : "I did not call for that test, and we will see the result, and if money was wasted I will change internal policy." and he will thank the radio for the whistle blowing. And the testers would say : "sorry I'm busy on another serious project, cannot say more.", and you will see update on their Linked-in account. The main reason to support the: "Test will be either positive or negative, but previous indication could not remove the possibility it works, so we investigated" is to look "neutral" , not already convinced. Of course they have an opinion, a rational opinion, based on what they observed... Not having an opinion would be a lack of realism. But pretending to be neutral give their voice more credibility if the result is positive. For the skeptics who convinced the masses, the LENR supporters are not realist basing their opinion on facts, but a gang of believers who bend evidence to support their dream. Another reason of their formulation is that the show that NOT PURSUING INVESTIGATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. It is an attack against the "don't look into the telescope" motto of the skeptical authorities, an absurd anti-scientific position. 2014-06-04 4:15 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com>: > I don't know why they replied. Since (as Jed pointed out) they ran the > test for the full duration it was most likely positive. > > The only reason I can think of is that the Swedish coverage might > influence journal editors, but I think a solid paper and a cover letter > would serve the same purpose. > > I sincerely doubt that a journal will pick it up, so it will most likely > be self-published (again) and generally ignored (again). > >
