On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, >> both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... >> > > >> In my vocabulary ... >> >> >> > ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're moving onto Humpty > Dumpty definitions. Yet another way we can all see you're full of shit. > > > Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic. I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological. I call it pathological because it's bad. Labels provide a shorthand, and allow more economic comparisons to previous episodes. I subscribe to a descriptive grammar, and pathological science has acquired a pretty recognized meaning. It is science of things that are not so, and its main characteristics are the lack of progress and the diminishing publication rate. It is usually contrary to well-established experimental evidence, and it helps if its reality would be a revolutionary advance, raining glory upon its discoverers. Cold fusion fits.
