5 ms·
> The nuclear physicists were simply pointing out that the evidence F&P offered of detecting an [unknown] fusion reaction, was not actually evidence of [known]
by drran 6y ago
> The nuclear physicists were simply pointing out that the evidence F&P offered of detecting an [unknown] fusion reaction, was not actually evidence of [known] fusion reaction.
See it?
- simonh 6y agoNo I don't, even if there is something unknown going on that has none of the known characteristics of fusion, why even say it's fusion? Why attach that label to it, especially when you have no actual theory of what is happening and why? To put it another way, why are you calling this an unknown fusion reaction? What's the basis for the claim that it was fusion of any kind? F&P thought that the evidence they had found demonstrated fusion. That it was known evidence of fusion. They were simply wrong. Saying 'well it might be some unknown form of fusion' is post-hoc rationalisation (for which you have no evidence or theory). That's not what they were saying at the time. It's so infuriating that 30 years later we're still fighting these fundamental misconceptions about what was going on.
- drran 6y agoWhy America was called West India? Why + is used for absence of electrons? Why atom called atom("unbreakable")? And so on. Discovery is not a science, but it is the part of science.
- simonh 6y agoExcellent thanks. That's very helpful as those analogies are very apt. The West Indies has nothing to do with India. Atoms are no unbreakable. Cold Fusion has nothing to do with fusion. I'm glad we got that straight.
- drran 6y ago> [unknown] Fusion has nothing to do with [known] fusion. I did it again. Shame on me.