LENR Is Real

[ScottL]

There was a study about belief done on anti-vaccination proponents. It found that they became more resistant the stronger the counter argument was made or backed up by facts. I think that might be the case in these threads regarding Rossi. The more we try to push facts at them, the more they'll resist, entrenching deeper into their beliefs. I say let them have the thread, but that perhaps some of the threads should be marked as "pseudo-science" until proven otherwise.

I can understand where this "pseudo-science" tag might bother some of the believers, but I think it is reasonable if you consider the following:

1. Must be peer-reviewed.
2. Must be replicated by 3rd parties not involved or have stake in replication.
3. Must be openly replicated (All information should be given such that a person with comparable knowledge of the subject should be able to and has replicated the work)

I think this is completely reasonable and actually what the patent office requires. I think it's a good judge of how to tag threads. As long as they're meeting these criteria regardless of if they are successful or not, should be considered good science. Any research where the researcher is actively holding information back should be kept "pseudo-science" until the time that they bring forth their unknowns.

[JoeP]

Be careful ScottL, or you will be labeled a troll for this heresy.

[Axil]

There was a study about belief done on anti-vaccination proponents. It found that they became more resistant the stronger the counter argument was made or backed up by facts. I think that might be the case in these threads regarding Rossi. The more we try to push facts at them, the more they'll resist, entrenching deeper into their beliefs. I say let them have the thread, but that perhaps some of the threads should be marked as "pseudo-science" until proven otherwise.

I can understand where this "pseudo-science" tag might bother some of the believers, but I think it is reasonable if you consider the following:

1. Must be peer-reviewed.
2. Must be replicated by 3rd parties not involved or have stake in replication.
3. Must be openly replicated (All information should be given such that a person with comparable knowledge of the subject should be able to and has replicated the work)

I think this is completely reasonable and actually what the patent office requires. I think it's a good judge of how to tag threads. As long as they're meeting these criteria regardless of if they are successful or not, should be considered good science. Any research where the researcher is actively holding information back should be kept "pseudo-science" until the time that they bring forth their unknowns.

Cold fusion can do your science approach too. But alas sadly this too will not impress the prideful and the arrogant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc

Cold Fusion as science

In this video, learn about the 23 peer-reviewed papers written over the years. Cold fusion can do both science and unlike hot fusion produce results.

[Axil]

From the very advent of civilization, the intellectual leaders of that earliest of bygone ages thought it paramount and indispensable to teach how stupidity, arrogance and pride can bring untold hardship to the people who suffer from it. In Genesis, Adam and Eve commit this first sin... this original sin...the sin from which all evil will eventually spring. Their pride and arrogance result in the lost of eternal life and the fruits of paradise. I see this eternal lesson once again forgotten in this thread as the original sin is recommitted for the Nth time.

[ScottL]

Alright Axil, step off your soap box. Nobody is saying LENR wouldn't be part of the discussion. I think most here agree there is legitimate research going on that would easily allow for it to be tagged real science. My post is about distinguishing those researchers who are putting forth pseudo-science which are hurting the movement. For instance, Rossi has not met these requirements and his secrecy\shady behavior is hurting real LENR research. Consider it a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the bad from the good, the pseudo from the real.

One more thing Axil, since I know you're reading. If you could be more thorough in your analysis of links you post, that would be appreciated. Numerous times you've either committed a "link and run" which doesn't add to the discussion at all or you've somehow misread the article and make misleading comments. I've read a few times where Ladajo has called you out on this, but you seem to ignore it and keep going. It'd be nice to actually understand the ideas you're attempting to convey without you seeming like a random person or article bot.

[parallel]

ScottL

I can understand where this "pseudo-science" tag might bother some of the believers, but I think it is reasonable if you consider the following:

1. Must be peer-reviewed.
2. Must be replicated by 3rd parties not involved or have stake in replication.
3. Must be openly replicated (All information should be given such that a person with comparable knowledge of the subject should be able to and has replicated the work)

Thomas Edison had 1000 patents and most people thought he had invented things that proved useful.
According to you, as he never wrote a single peer reviewed paper, nor were they independently replicated, they must have been all pseudo, fraudulent illusions. Likewise the Wright Bros.
Ah well. This is what one expects from a pathological skeptic.
(I know you will ignore the bit about the US Patent Office refusing to grant patents on anything that is cold fusion)

[Giorgio]

Thomas Edison had 1000 patents and most people thought he had invented things that proved useful.
According to you, as he never wrote a single peer reviewed paper, nor were they independently replicated, they must have been all pseudo, fraudulent illusions. Likewise the Wright Bros.
Ah well. This is what one expects from a pathological skeptic.
(I know you will ignore the bit about the US Patent Office refusing to grant patents on anything that is cold fusion)

Funny. You might be surprised to learn that one of the very first attempts to create a peer review scientific journal in USA was done by Edison himself (together with Bell).
The name of that journal was (and still is) "Science".

So, what was again your point?

[Axil]

Thomas Edison had 1000 patents and most people thought he had invented things that proved useful.
According to you, as he never wrote a single peer reviewed paper, nor were they independently replicated, they must have been all pseudo, fraudulent illusions. Likewise the Wright Bros.
Ah well. This is what one expects from a pathological skeptic.
(I know you will ignore the bit about the US Patent Office refusing to grant patents on anything that is cold fusion)

Funny. You might be surprised to learn that one of the very first attempts to create a peer review scientific journal in USA was done by Edison himself (together with Bell).
The name of that journal was (and still is) "Science".

So, what was again your point?

I am trying to understand how this fits into you view of things

[/quote]
and of course...

[Axil]

Thomas Edison had 1000 patents and most people thought he had invented things that proved useful.
According to you, as he never wrote a single peer reviewed paper, nor were they independently replicated, they must have been all pseudo, fraudulent illusions. Likewise the Wright Bros.
Ah well. This is what one expects from a pathological skeptic.
(I know you will ignore the bit about the US Patent Office refusing to grant patents on anything that is cold fusion)

Dear Parallel,

What made America of those times so prolific in the invention of civaliztion changing devices that surpassed anything that Europe was able to produce?

Mainly, it was being the destination country for the Scottish diaspora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_S ... dern_World

Today, science in America has devolved into a system of feudalism where there is a nobility and a subjugate serfdom. It was that Europian system of thought that the Scots were rebelling against. In so doing, the Scots fled to America for a new birth of fredom. Only in America of those times could the Scots allow their independent and rebellious spirit given free rein to the free thinking that led to the birth of all those world changing inventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_ ... iscoveries

[Giorgio]

I am trying to understand how this fits into you view of things

Because Lasagna and Tiramisu has been widely peer reviewed and replicated worldwide by thousands of amateur and professional (kitchen) scientists.

If you don't see the connection it probably means that you never actually tried to replicate something that someone else created just for the pleasure of verifying if his claims was real or not.
And you also missed a great mouth watering experience, as JoeP can probably confirm.

[parallel]

ScottL
1. Must be peer-reviewed.

Parallel,
he (Edison) never wrote a single peer reviewed paper

Giorgio,
So, what was again your point?

The point was ScottL was WRONG.
If you can't understand something that simple there is not much point discussing it.

[JoeP]

It seems pretty clear that ScottL was making a suggestion. And being nice about it, too.

Also,

According to you, as he never wrote a single peer reviewed paper, nor were they independently replicated, they must have been all pseudo, fraudulent illusions. Likewise the Wright Bros.

That is a silly, snotty way to argue. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Straw_man

I don't think you want a real debate any more than Rossi wants a real, independent test of his device.

And Lasagna is indeed delizioso!

[parallel]

JoeP,
You don't think "1. Must be peer-reviewed." was a straw man?
"Must" according to the dictionary doesn't leave much wiggle room.

[JoeP]

JoeP,
You don't think "1. Must be peer-reviewed." was a straw man?
"Must" according to the dictionary doesn't leave much wiggle room.

If you read his post, he was suggesting a possible new way to categorize threads here on Talk Polywell, and to flag threads such as these as possible pseudo-science until the some criteria he suggested was met; criteria he felt that was generally used by the US patent office.

He did not say all science advancements and inventions in the past were due to a peer review process.
Your point about Edison and the like would refute a statement like that, but that is not at all what he was writing in his post.

[Giorgio]

ScottL
1. Must be peer-reviewed.

Parallel,
he (Edison) never wrote a single peer reviewed paper

Giorgio,
So, what was again your point?

The point was ScottL was WRONG.
If you can't understand something that simple there is not much point discussing it.

Clearly you didn't understand what ScottL is speaking about or you don't know history or both. Let's try again.

You see, Peer Review prior to publishing has the necessity of a fundamental element, that is "divulgation" of the experimental methods, details and results.
For the above reason the "Peer Review" process as we know it is something that started only after WWII, and more specifically it started in 1959/60 with the invention of the photocopy machine that allowed for the first time the quick and mass distribution of one's experimental results to other researchers. It than evolved in the start of the 70's with the mass acceptance of the first standard phone enabled Fax Machines, and it finally become what we know today with the introduction of the eMail.

To make it short and in a way that even you should be able to understand:
The Peer Review process as ScottL mentioned simply DID NOT EXIST in the era of Edison because they didn't have the tools to implement it.

Additionally the gold age inventors was never afraid to show and disclose their inventions, as they knew that this was the only way for them to get a quick acceptance from scientific and public communities.
This is yet another point where Rossi acts differently from the very same famous inventors that you bring as example, but instead of raising suspicious in you this attitude of Rossi seems to please you....... go wonder!