Posted on 04/08/2013 12:31:13 PM PDT by Kevmo
You can say that again
Science is the endeavor to discover what you don’t know using precise measurements, reason and logic.......
When HE has his setup refined to the point where he gets the same results every time, or at least gets results well outside the realm of random chance, THEN he gets to publish, describing accurately how to reproduce his results.
If another scientist has trouble getting the result, then the description of the apparatus was inadequately rigorous. The original scientist may, at that point, offer to work with the other scientist, perhaps offering a copy of his apparatus, until they can work out how to rigorously specify how to reproduce the effect.
However the author writes: “In the
case of the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the scientific community
has already studied the effect in sufficient detail with
the result that it lies outside of science; so as with other areas
determined to be outside of science, the scientific method
cannot be used. We recognize in this that certain questions
cannot be addressed using the scientific method.”
Then what method would he use to examine cold fusion? studying the entrails of goats?
“We recognize in this that certain questions
cannot be addressed using the scientific method.”
But why would THIS question not be able to be addressed?
Kevmo's Method which is spamming and hyping this nonsense all over FR.
Nothing says "nutcase science" like "Infinite Energy."
Typically the important question of why researchers have not been able to produce cold fusion consistently hasn’t been brought up.
The fact is that experiment rules...theory be damned.
I put that in there just for you. I knew that you would read as far as you could to find something negative to say. I could have left it as just LENR-CANR.ORG but then you might actually have to read some of the article. I gave you the excuse you needed to not read the article, which is what you’ve shown you’re so reluctant to do.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
It is the responsibility of the scientist to do his best to get reliably reproducible results before publishing. His research is not complete until he does. When HE has his setup refined to the point where he gets the same results every time, or at least gets results well outside the realm of random chance, THEN he gets to publish, describing accurately how to reproduce his results.
***Cloning the sheep named Dolly only got something like 1/30,000 tries. LENR beats this standard by a mile. Current replications are about 1/3 tries.
You consistently ignore the fact that the Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times.
If a researcher has an occasional positive result against mostly negative results then either his experimental conditions vary in some subtle way or his method of examination cannot yield a consistent answer.
***First of all, this is a classic fallacy of false dilemma reasoning. It only takes ONE positive result to replicate it, and this effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times. Consistent answers are NOT required, otherwise you’d have to wait 30 years before you can acknowledge that Dolly the sheep has been cloned. Typical skeptopath reasoning includes lowering the bar for other researchers while raising it for LENR researchers.
so as with other areas
determined to be outside of science, the scientific method
cannot be used.
***He’s talking about how scientists us a priori reasoning, which is another classic fallacy. You really don’t know how to spot fallacies, do you?
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
I don't think sarcasm is going to help the bad image of cold fusion.
It doesn't help Hagelstein either:
From Wiki:
In 1989 he started investigating low-energy nuclear reactions, with the hope of making a breakthrough similar to the X-ray laser.[2] The field has since been discredited in the eyes of most scientists, and due to his involvement he has never achieved full professorship and he has lost his own laboratory.[2]
Wow, you're so clever, yet the real source is still INFINITE ENERGY (LOL!).
LENR-CANR.ORG is nothing more than someone's personal website.
His sarcasm was too subtle for most readers. Personally, I enjoyed it, and find that a huge part of his criticism is especially valid when pointed towards the fraud known as "global warming climate change".
But why would THIS question not be able to be addressed?
***Duhh, just how dim are you? To point out the obvious, if scientists engage in a-priori reasoning, the question at hand will not be able to be addressed. I mean, really. Huge duhh factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.