Jed, What do you expect from a blog named
"cocktail_party_physics" ? Harry On 30/8/2007 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is the comment the Blogger chopped. She cannot even tolerate > even this minor level of dissent. No sane, educated person would > disagree with what I say here EXCEPT in the context of cold fusion, > which transforms educated people into maniacs. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > You wrote: > > "Seeing as how the point of the post was the media coverage of the > issue, the focus on media sources was perfectly appropriate." > > Well, okay. That's a valuable service. But don't you think it would > be a good idea to fact-check the media claims? Since you are a > science writer, it seems to me you should compare the media claims > with the actual science, and tell your readers which accounts are > accurate, and which are not. > > Whether cold fusion is right or wrong, a reporter should not invent > nonsensical claims that someone "amassed . . . a statistically > significant sampling of instances." That never happened. No one would > do that with calorimetry. > > Some reporter dreamed up the notion that cold fusion researchers have > their own journal. (Perhaps he or she thought that "Infinite Energy" > magazine is a journal, but it is not, since it never publishes > original research.) You can fact-check this easily at a university > library or at LENR-CANR. I do not think it is "evenhanded" or > "unbiased" for you to treat all newspapers as equally credible when > some publish blatant errors while others report facts. > > Most of these errors are without malice, by the way. Many newspaper > reporters have difficulty understanding the experiments, and they > have not read the papers. Some media errors make cold fusion look > better than it is. > > - Jed Rothwell > Librarian, LENR-CANR.org >
