Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. ***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped.
What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. ***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you. The rest of your argument is a classic fallacy, arguing from silence. In this case the silence is from the future, as if you knew what the future beheld. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of >> those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that >> chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the >> experiments? I doubt it's going to be more than a dozen. 20 years after >> that episode in science, no one was investigating Polywater. If there were >> a contingent still researching Polywater, then yes, that WOULD be a good >> example of pathological science. >> > > You're right. Polywater is different from cold fusion in that it was > debunked to everyone's satisfaction. > > That may or may not happen in cold fusion, but it hasn't happened yet. > > Not all field are the same, but they can still be similar. > > For a decade, people chased polywater in vain. So far it's been 2 decades > for cold fusion. It's been a century for homeopathy and perpetual motion > and dowsing.... > > If cold fusion is ever debunked to everyone's satisfaction, or when the > principals disappear by attrition, research in cold fusion will stop too. > Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. What's left now > are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. > > > > > > > > > > > >> But there is no such contingent. >> >> You try the same argumentation approach towards cold fusion papers. >> >> LENR is different because there are still anomalous results being found >> 20 years after the scientific establishment threw it under the bus, because >> there is no definitive study that proves it to be an artifact. And if it >> IS an artifact, it will likely be a chemical way to produce energy, so in >> itself it will still be something worth following. >> Then you write this: >> So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream >> *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result >> had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science >> or Nature.) >> ***And for my own little corner of LENR, I know what you write is utterly >> untrue. I made money by betting that Yoshiaki Arata's results would get >> replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and one of those journals was >> Physics Letters A. >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37542.html >> > >
