At 06:25 PM 12/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Suppose Gibbs were to read EPRI's paper, or Gerischer where he says:
"there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear
processes take place in the metal alloys."
Suppose Gibbs were to say: "I get it. I understand why Gerischer
reached that conclusion. He believes that tritium alone is proof of
a nuclear reaction and you do not need a theory to justify that
conclusion. However, I disagree. I say that observation alone is not
enough, and you can't be sure cold fusion is a real nuclear effect
until you explain it with a theory."
Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that?
I would say: "Okay, that violates the scientific method as taught in
textbooks. However, you have a right to your opinion, and many
important scientists such as Huizenga agreed with you."
You should understand the other person's point of view. Know what it
is you are disagreeing with.
Yes. Now please demonstrate this skill.
Huizenga's book is truly embarrassing. But he was an old man, and,
unfortunately, probably losing it. He was like a broken record, he
kept repeating the same thing over and over.
Nevertheless, I personally prefer to commend him for honestly noting
the importance of the Miles experiment. He did not attempt to impeach
Miles or his methods, and he honestly stated why he thought that
Miles would not be confirmed. "No gammas," which reveals, in two
words, the basic error that he -- with many others -- was making.
He was judging an unknown reaction by noting that it was not a known
reaction. Which we already knew.
Getting back to the history of DNA, at Google books I am reading a
book written in 1916 about genetics, describing the subject
accurately in great detail: "Genetics and eugenics: a text-book for
students of biology . . ." by William Ernest Castle and Gregor
Mendel. The author frequently points out that he has no physical
theory to explain any of this, and it is entirely observational. He
can prove there are genes, and that some are on one chromosome and
some on another, and so on. He shows all of this by observation and
logic alone. This is how science used to be done. No one in 1916
would demand a theory; i.e. physical evidence of encoded genetic
information (DNA).
That's correct. Who, here, is "demanding a theory"?
Gibbs has noted that lack of theory is a problem. That applies only
in certain narrow areas, but he's not *wrong*. It's a problem! It
has, as you have said, Jed, nothing to do with science. We can have
science on a topic, with no theory as to mechanism (which is what
this boils down to, there *is* theory as to effect, confirmed,
verified, and almost certainly correct.)
