Jed, I can get requiring a testable theory. I just fail to see how, "This process causes X amount of heat above what goes in to come out." is not a testable theory.
No, modern science books still teach it the right way. My sister is taking high school science, and her book has it as Hypothesis, experiment, observe, analyze, confirm. Nothing about a model. Doing a little research, I'm finding a lot of info on "operational" scientific method, which requires a testable model. I notice a lot of the descriptions seem to add monetization or analysis of increased efficiency of production as part of the analysis step. Seems like something that would get taught to engineers focusing more on the practical side of r and d, rather than pure scientific investigations? Alex On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
