Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers

And in reactors here on Earth. There's a lot of ways to initiate fusion; we just haven't found one that's easy, cheap and useful. But given all the ways we have discovered to initiate fusion, there are likely still some yet to be discovered.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When the cold Fusion folks started calling it LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), it reminded me of the creationists switching to using the term Intelligent Design.

A rose by another name still looks & smells nice. Poop by another name still stinks & looks lousy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately this answer doesn't shed any more light on my question because it is too simplistic The people who wrote the paper appear to be mostly credible academics in physics and chemistry and they would certainly know what you pointed out about fusion as I do. The real question is why didn't they dismiss the possibility that the process was cold fusion outright? They were careful not to say what they observed was cold fusion but they equally didn't dismiss they possibility it could be cold fusion either?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course mainstream thinking gets mainstream thinking

 

Yes, of course. But that misses the point. The point is that mainstream thinking produces results and non-mainstream thinking doesn't. Never, ever.

 

The key words there is "appear to be". Pons and Fleischman "appeared to be" credible academics too. Andrew Wakefield too. But, nope, turns out they were actually crackpot frauds. You can't just accpt what they say as true based on their credentials. That's the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

I somewhat disagree. Generally, yes you are correct, but breakthroughs can happen when one steps outside of the mainstream system of thought.

 

Of course you are right, at one time “mainstream” thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything revolved around it.

I have complete faith in the scientific method, but not nearly so much in scientists, because I understand how the method gets unintentionally and unknowingly corrupted by human nature that wants to fit what is unknown and new, into what serves our preconceptions and interests. Every study I’ve seen has shown this overwhelmingly, it is both good and bad, it allows us to build on our previous knowledge and it amplifies mistakes if that knowledge has flaws. Most importantly when it serves one beliefs or interest it is always rationalized as not being applicable to their work or argument and ones profession or intelligence has little bearing on this.

 

Sure it does. Germ theory wasn't mainstream; neither was the idea that a pathogen causes ulcers rather than stress. Both were later accepted as mainstream.

 

To all three of you: "the mainstream" we are talking about here is the scientific way of thinking. It isn't merely about unconventional or new theories. And that also puts a time limit on the historical examples: almost nothing before Galileo's time would qualify as an exception because the scientific method hadn't been invented yet!

I know "never, ever" is pretty absolute and there MAY be a small handful of real exceptions (though I dont know of any offhand). I say it that absolutely for the purpose of slamming the door hard on the wrong idea that nonscientific thinking is a generally viable way of advancing humanity's knowledge of the way the universe works.

 

I love the scientific way of thinking! Yet my point was 100% accurate that the vast majority of scientist will still unknowingly and unintentionally corrupt that thinking because it is inherent in our nature, this is unavoidable.