On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> Mark, you quoted Siegel as saying that CF violated physics because it did > not act like hot fusion. Carat simply pointed out that CF was not like hot > fusion and this comparison was not valid. She simply made a statement of > belief, not a proof. Siegel also made a statement of belief, not a proof > or fact. > They are hardly equivalent. Carat's statement is that of a true believer with no knowledge, background, or experience. That sort of thing can be said (and is) about any pseudoscientific claim. Perpetual motion is not like ordinary motion. Homeopathy is not like ordinary water chemistry. Psychic energy is not like ordinary energy. It is meaningless. Of course, anomalous results sometimes defy current understanding. That's how science progresses. But evidence for such results has to be as strong as the evidence that suggests they are impossible. Anti-gravity violates current theories, and a magician who releases a ball that files up will not convince anyone that he has a genuine new anomaly, any more than the various claims of pseudoscientists with lame or absent evidence. But careful experiments, widely performed, that show consistent anti-gravity effects would be immediately accepted, just as HTSC was. Siegel's statement simply says that copious, highly robust, and consistent evidence suggest cold fusion won't work. That's not hand-waving at all. It's based on more than half a century of solid evidence. Evidence for cold fusion needs to be as strong to be accepted, and so far, it is pitifully weak.
