3 ms·
A 'real scientific' article wouldn't do anything to convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted. Which is kind of an interesting thing in an of itsel
by pknight 11y ago
A 'real scientific' article wouldn't do anything to convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted. Which is kind of an interesting thing in an of itself. I think for controversial stuff, you simply won't get scientists to budge no matter how transparent or rigorious the reporting. If the stuff turns out to be true, there will be a long delay before acceptance.
I no longer believe that open replications make much difference either (there have been open replications and I still don't know anything more).
They are focussed on industrial and consumer installations instead. I'll start really believing if people are using this in the real world and that's the strategy they have I think. So wait and see is what I do.
- xenophonf 11y agoA 'real scientific' article wouldn't do anything to convince people - it would be picked apart and doubted A/K/A the scientific process, which is why experimental scientists publishing results with 5-sigma confidence intervals also painstakingly account for all of the different ways they could have screwed up, e.g., the recent gravitational waves paper, the Higgs boson discovery, etc. It goes the other way, like those guys who thought they might have discovered FTL neutrinos (but it turned out to be errors in either the apparatus or their analysis, I can't remember which). And there being a real-world production with industrial and customer installations doesn't guarantee the absence of snake oil. How many millions of dollars were squandered on the ADE 651? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
- pknight 11y agoThere have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. It's just we're wired to the status quo and nobody likes to be tricked. And you can't keep say, a factory or a house running on snake oil, so it will be evident pretty quickly.
- api 11y agoShow me a house running on an eCat then.
- Oletros 11y ago> There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. Can you link to some of them?
- pknight 11y agoCheck out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 "We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09." Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study. Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably. The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition. Bystanders often say, well if it's true why isn't there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won't matter. If there's something special happening, there's going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea. As far as LENR is concerned, I can't say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren't comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it's a hoax a priori.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]