leaking pen <itsat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Observation drives theory, always. I don't get this Gibbs character > denying that. I do. He and many leading skeptics demand a "testable theory" before they will believe the results. J. Piel, the late editor of the Scientific American told me that any result that cannot be explained by theory is pathological. He said that if "the precise physical mechanism is not fully understood," that makes it Langmuir's pathological science: http://lenr-canr.org/AppealandSciAm.pdf I am sure he meant that. I have heard the same thing countless times from Huizenga and others like him. This is not a controversial point of view among opponents of cold fusion. It is no surprise that Gibbs agrees with them. Naturally, everyone in the field would like to have a theory. No one denies the value of a theory. The issue is whether lack of theory is a legitimate criterion to reject results, or even downplay them; i.e. to say, "these results would be more believable if you could explain them." An old fashioned scientist such as Schwinger, Bockris or Gerischer would say no. Piel, Huizenga and others say yes. There is a huge gap between the two camps. The textbooks used to support our side. I have not read a science textbook since the 1960s so I do not know what they say nowadays. - Jed
