> but it pretty much is exactly what the original post says (although he is dismissive/negative about this) The difference is that he is implying scientists tw

> but it pretty much is exactly what the original post says (although he is dismissive/negative about this) The difference is that he is implying scientists tweak their models to get what they want to see; i.e., they have a hypothesis and then manipulate the model until it gives them results that confirm their hypothesis. This is bad science. What I'm saying is that scientists (should) create their model to fit reality for only the specific situations where it is provably applicable. If the model then confirms the hypothesis, great. If it doesn't, no big deal; it just means your hypothesis was wrong and you probably won't get a paper out of it (in an ideal world, we would publish papers about negative results because that is science as well, but I'm afraid those papers don't garner near the attention or interest that positive results do). > What surprises me more are his claims that we don't even understand (or understood) even the basics of lithium on a chemical level? Is this even true? Yeah, it's true. That's why me (and a whole lot of other people) are doing research in this area. As for the paper, I'm not sure what its impact is. Research becomes very narrow in fields like this, and I don't study electrolytes (I study carbon anodes). So I can't comment on that.