It is unfortunate that these guys demand a verified theory before being content to accept the lab results. I think this is a part of human nature that many are unwilling to put their reputations on the line unless the evidence is iron clad in every dimension. The lab proof is solid, but they are still hanging up upon the theory and I suspect this will continue to be true until someone places one within their hands that they can directly measure with little effort and absolutely can not be faked. But, don't be surprised if they continue to hedge their bets.
As long as the main line physics experts keep saying it is not possible, these folks are not going to take a chance. It is as simple as that. If Rossi or some other organization places a device into the public arena, eventually even the most skeptic among them will concede without a good theory. In that case the skeptic physics community will have no choice. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical 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
