3 ms·
All of that clearly raises red flags, which are perhaps overwhelming, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were entirely wrong. Case in point, a certain pharma
by lvs 6y ago
All of that clearly raises red flags, which are perhaps overwhelming, but it doesn't necessarily mean they were entirely wrong. Case in point, a certain pharma company with no track record whatsoever was recently working on mRNA vaccines: they did science by press release, didn't release details of their experiments purportedly for commercial reasons, had sketchy executives saying sketchy things, and it all turned out to be 100% right. It's hard to take the red flags and draw a conclusion based on that alone. The failure to replicate is far more important than the behavior of the actors involved.
- pfdietz 6y agoP&F were not replicated, so we can safely say they were entirely wrong. For some reason, their negative result makes some people believe other different kinds of "cold fusion" are more likely. This is not how conditional probability works.
- drran 6y agoQuote: As a demonstration of reproducibility, samples of palladium-nickel-zirconium oxide powder, taken from a single batch of production, were employed in independent parallel test runs at laboratories at Kobe University and Tohoku University. Both laboratories observed sustained excess heat over a period of more than 10 days. The data were qualitatively and quantitatively similar between the two laboratories.
- pfdietz 6y agoReproducibility means a recipe that anyone can reproduce. Anecdotal reports of that sort don't count. They can be explained by incompetence or even fraud. What the whole sorry cold fusion experience shows is that if you have enough people trying to do something, some will get positive results, regardless of whether the phenomenon is actually real. A real tip off is how variable and mutually inconsistent the ephemeral positive results are. This is a sign they are experimental artifacts, not anything significant.
- ajarmst 6y agoExactly. The fact that reported positive results always seem to be at the limits of detectability, whatever the equipment used, is a huge red flag that the results are probably artifacts.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> P&F were not replicated, Including, after spending tons of money trying, by P&F themselves.
- ajarmst 6y agoThe crucial difference is that the mRNA virus, when finally scrutinized, was shown to be effective with effects that could be consistently replicated and there was a theoretical explanation consistent with other things we've observed about mammalian immune systems. People were absolutely correct to dismiss the claims about the mRNA virus until those demonstrations were available, and would be wrong to dismiss them afterward. Cold 'fusion' is still in the first phase and has been for decades. Science isn't about what might be right. It's about what can be demonstrated.