How do you convince a skeptic?

  • It seems to me Jed is simply trying to establish rules of engagement, so you and he, or any believer/skep, can have a meaningful, disciplined debate. You misinterpret that as his bullying, and respond with these emotional outbursts. What he is doing makes perfect sense to me though.


    We can either debate LENR via the science, or by opinion. Nothing wrong with either approach, but they do mot mix well. If debating the science, both sides need to have knowledge of, and understand the research. In other words...know what they are talking about, which you admittedly do not. If not debating the science, then the argument becomes opinion based, and that is where "appeal to authority" comes in.


    You however, appear to be freely intermingling opinion with science, and vice versa.

    Shane,


    Unfortunately, that is all it will be, a debate.


    Jed and IO can sling @&$+^^ back and forth,

    neither will move an inch, as they both believe what they choose to believe is true.


    If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In, then we will know.

    Like Climate Science, Politics, Religion, etc, we can all cherry pick whatever data we want that supports the conclusion we were told to draw by whoever we support.


    The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources.


    Hopefully in my lifetime, but I wouldn’t bet the beach house on it.

  • Roseland is correct in assessing the pointlessness of my “debate” with Jed. His criterion being met would certainly vindicate Jed’s view that LENR is proven science. As for my view, if LENR becomes a commercial reality (or there is some other widely-accepted manifestation of the technology), that does not really address my current stance, whcih is simply that I don’t believe I have enough reason to make up my mind one way or another. Jed, of course, thinks I am lying about that and hence our peculiar interaction in which he continues to ascribe opinions to me that I don’t hold. Meanwhile, obviously, if Roseland’s conditions are met, then I could not possibly remain undecided any longer.

  • If these “multitudes” of experiments, all showing excess heat and/or elemental transmutation ALL showed the SAME results then the critique would be difficult,


    Many of them show excess heat. Not in every test, but in hundreds of tests they do. Counting the tests that failed would be like counting rocket launches up until 1960 and concluding that rockets do not exist. (Because most of them failed, especially the U.S. Vanguard series.)


    Elemental transmutation is very difficult to detect and has seldom been measured.


    BUT,

    as these experiments all show different results, even when running the same experiment, SOMETHING had to change in the experiment, do you agree?


    The experiments show the same results, so I need not consider that hypothetical. It is a little unclear what range of results you might be imagining here. If some experiments were endothermic (swallowing up heat) perhaps you would have a point, but they are all either exothermic or the balance is zero. In nearly every case when the experiment produces no heat, the reasons it failed are well understood. The problems are readily apparent. That does not mean the problems can be fixed. It is like trying to repair a car. You can usually diagnose the problem but you may not have any means of fixing it.



    Same Bill if Materials

    Same build instructions

    Same testing procedures/protocols

    Same results


    Then was any experiment actually successful?


    They don't have things like Bill of Materials or build instructions in fundamental academic research. By the time they have those things, it isn't research; it is applied technology. However, there are detailed descriptions. If you follow them and if you are an expert, you will see excess heat. Whether it happens often or seldom is somewhat difficult to define. That depends on when you start counting. For example, Ed Storms started a series of tests with about 100 pieces of palladium. He tested them and eliminated all but 6 as I recall, in the initial testing phase. He then did cold fusion experiments with those six, and all of them worked. They worked repeatedly. (See: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf) So, is that a 6% success rate? Or 100%? I think the question is meaningless. Storms and all other researchers know what is needed and how to accomplish it, but they are not always able to accomplish it, just as the rocket scientists of 1959 could not always launch rockets successfully. They knew what they were doing, and they knew why the Vanguard rockets exploded.


    By the way, you would know all of this if you read the McKubre paper, but of course you will not do that.

  • The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources.


    Over 180 major laboratories have replicated cold fusion, and published their results in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Many of these replications are at very high signal to noise ratios. The people doing these experiments were the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemistry. People such as Fleischmann, FRS, Bockris, who literally wrote the book on modern electrochemistry, Yeager the guy they named the chemistry building after. And Arata, the other guy with a building and international prize named after him; the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; a commissioner on the French Atomic Energy Commission; the Indian scientists who headed up their atomic bomb development program; and so on, and so forth. Hundreds of the best, most qualified, most famous people in the field replicated. If you don't believe them, and if you do not consider them trusted sources, there are absolutely no scientists anywhere on earth that you would trust. They don't come any more trustworthy than this.


    The thing is, you don't know shit from shinola about cold fusion. You have no idea who replicated, or what they claimed, and you are just talking all out your head. Making stuff up. Claiming that people you have never heard of are not trusted.



    If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In


    All experiments prove that. If you don't think so, you know nothing about calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. Proving there is excess energy does not mean the effect can or will become a commercial reality. Plasma fusion tokamaks always produce more energy out than in, but they are not close to commercial reality, and I doubt they ever will be.

  • Sorry Jed, I don't think you are able to have a valid opinion on UFOs unless you have read every paper and book on the subject and cross checked every piece of evidence presented for UFOs.


    That would not be necessary. If I were to review the top 20 papers recommended by people who think UFOs are real, and then the top 20 rebuttals, I could probably form an informed opinion on that subject. I know something about the relevant technology, such as aviation and radar. Along similar lines, a person who understands college-level physics and chemistry, who reads the top 20 papers on cold fusion, starting with the reviews by McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein, should be able to judge the validity of cold fusion. You don't have to read hundreds of papers. I feature the top papers by McKubre, Storms and Hagelstein at LENR-CANR.org and in my video. I make it easy for people to get a handle on the subject. I have often been accused of demanding that skeptics read hundreds of papers, but that is not a bit true.




    (As it happens, I have not read anything about UFOs, so I have no opinion. I am aware that most experts doubt they exist. It does seem unlikely they exist, but "seems" is not a valid basis for a serious scientific analysis.)

  • These are good examples of how vacuous Jed’s belligerent dismisal of anyone who doesn’t bend to his will is. Of course, his other go-to is appeal to authority.


    You are incorrect. This is not an appeal to authority. Two reasons:


    1. You misunderstand the usual meaning of that term. An appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when the authorities are not authoritative about the subject in question. See:


    "Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made."


    https://www.logicallyfallaciou…Appeal-to-False-Authority


    Citing Fleischmann, Bockris or Yeager in a discussion of electrochemistry is an appeal to an actual authority, which is logical and by itself constitutes strong evidence.


    2. In some cases, the authority may be valid, but merely citing them is not convincing:


    "Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."


    https://www.logicallyfallaciou…es/21/Appeal-to-Authority


    I have given you the supporting evidence. I have uploaded paper by Fleischmann, Bockris and the others, which proves they really did say what I ascribe to them. Furthermore, if you understand the science, and you read the papers, you can judge for yourself whether they were right or not.

  • Jed and IO can sling @&$+^^ back and forth,

    neither will move an inch, as they both believe what they choose to believe is true.


    If/when LENR becomes a commercial reality proving Energy Out > Energy In, then we will know.

    Like Climate Science, Politics, Religion, etc, we can all cherry pick whatever data we want that supports the conclusion we were told to draw by whoever we support.


    The only way this “debate” comes to an end is when it is proven to exist by multiple trusted sources



    Roseland,


    I agree Jed will not make any headway with IO (mainly because he refuses to do his homework :) ), but debating LENR...the science, can lead to more public awareness, resulting in more government involvement, and venture funding. It may even weaken the resistance from the mainstream science community, easing the stigma, which would make for a less hostile research environment. All of which will get us to the day of reckoning faster, then if no one argued it at all.


    So looking at it that way...by passionately arguing for, or against LENR, you are doing your small part to save the planet.

  • Shane, out of curiosity, exactly what headway is Jed not making with me? The fact that I “haven’t done my homework” means that I am not qualified to argue whether LENR is real or not. I agree with that. So what is it that he is not succeeding to do? Convince me to do research on LENR? That’s true. He hasn’t convinced me. I am content to consider the subject to be an idle curiosity that might turn out to be something important some day or might not. And I am content to wait and see which it is.


    So apparently, since I am not arguing against LENR (as well as not arguing for it), I am not doing my part for Mother Earth. Well, I have no guilt whatsoever regarding efforts to save the planet since I consider the things I am involved with on that front to be far more relevant (at least at this point if not forever) than LENR. For those who seem to think that LENR is mankind’s only solution, I just shake my head. I shake my head even more vigorously that many of the most ardent LENR advocates are also climate change deniers. What are those people even trying to save the planet from?

  • Shane, out of curiosity, exactly what headway is Jed not making with me? The fact that I “haven’t done my homework” means that I am not qualified to argue whether LENR is real or not. I agree with that. So what is it that he is not succeeding to do? Convince me to do research on LENR? That’s true. He hasn’t convinced me. I am content to consider the subject to be an idle curiosity that might turn out to be something important some day or might not. And I am content to wait and see which it is.


    Going from memory, but you asked for some proof LENR had progressed the past 30 years in terms of understanding, reliability, and scaling up. Jed said yes, provided examples. You said that was not good enough, and asked for better proof, whereupon he directed you to LENR-CANR. You did not want to go there and "do your homework". He then tried to get the both of you on the same playing field, so as to continue on with the debate. At that point, you declared yourself a victim of his, and all LENR believers, bullying tactics.


    No matter, because you agree the science is worth pursuing, and are "curious that it might turn out to be important some day". Well, we all are...so in a way, you are one of us. No reason to argue among the like minded.

  • Shane, out of curiosity, exactly what headway is Jed not making with me?

    None whatever! Nor do I expect to make any progress with the likes of you. You are a rhetorical punching bag. The straight man in a comedy act. The foil, as in:


    I'll be your foil, Laertes: in mine ignorance
    Your skill shall, like a star i' the darkest night,
    Stick fiery off indeed.

  • Going from memory, but you asked for some proof LENR had progressed the past 30 years in terms of understanding, reliability, and scaling up. Jed said yes, provided examples. You said that was not good enough, and asked for better proof, whereupon he directed you to LENR-CANR. You did not want to go there and "do your homework". He then tried to get the both of you on the same playing field, so as to continue on with the debate. At that point, you declared yourself a victim of his, and all LENR believers, bullying tactics.


    No matter, because you agree the science is worth pursuing, and are "curious that it might turn out to be important some day". Well, we all are...so in a way, you are one of us. No reason to argue among the like minded.

    The discussion of progress basically took place in posts #165 and #166 on this thread. Jed said yes or no for the various attributes. He directed me to McKubre and his video. I commented that he did not point out anything more recent than 10 years ago and he responded that every is old and dead but that there has nonetheless been progress.


    That was pretty much the end of the discussion of progress in the field. Since then, Jed has mostly been telling me to stop disparaging LENR researchers, criticizing their papers without reading them, and denying their results. I have repeately asked for examples where I have done this and, naturally, have not been shown any. The rest of this has been other topics such as the competence of non-experts in evaluating scientific papers.


    Anyway, i don’t care about the “bullying”. It is standard internet practice for treating people outside of the tribe. But as you say, I am actually rooting for the home team even if I haven’t been convinced that it will win so no worries.

  • ALL?


    Really JED, ALL?


    When 1 single experiment is replicated,

    When everyone skilled in the art, does the same experiment and gets the same results?



    I am sure there are multiple experiments that get some generic amount of excess heat, (you could even include Rossi in that example).


    This is like your previous comment on

    “Good proof”.

    Lets just say there is some compelling experimental evidence that begs further investigation, analysis and peer review.


    Until then, I disagree.