Current science has become enamored with unfalsifiable fantasy rather than rigorous theory, and the press/internet is largely to blame.

  • Science is not what it used to be. A large issue is the press or internet sites printing any garbage a "mainstream" fantasy scientist speculates, usually for notoriety.

    Here is one example but there are so many more.

    A former Harvard astronomer, Avi Loeb, takes a theory with no evidence, the "Zero-energy universe", states it as FACT, then extrapolates to ludicrous extents.

    This then gets this garbage published in Scientific American, that the universe could have been created in a lab.

    This is science? Where is Karl Popper?

    It seems like these days you can just make up anything and get it published, if it is sensational enough.

    Was Our Universe Created in a Laboratory? - Scientific American

    Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia


    There is a lot of this kind of stuff going on with obviously unqualified people here, but this theme rises to the very top of the scientific establishment.

    If there is interest in this topic, I would like to give other examples. (Don't let me get started on String Theory" :) )

  • Mainstream science would also include LENR as "garbage", and we know that is wrong. Don't we? :) Not sure how science should address what they consider the problem of fantasy theories. How would you? Is it really a problem, and if so...how?


    Competing ideas that do not conform to that time periods group think, have been around since the first caveman received his science diploma. There are many examples where those oddball theories turned out to be right, and the mainstream wrong. Then the science changes.


    Sometimes IMO, trying to correct a problem creates new ones.

  • I was pleased that Avi Loeb believes in alien civilizations, but lordy, that he thinks they are making other universes including our own is too over the top even for Hollywood. (Wait, scratch that. Men in Black had a cat wearing a universe on his collar. )

    Forget about aliens creating universes, I just want to know the ho-hum technical details of how the heck they are getting to our planet hahahaha

    Perhaps the olden ideals for a scientific theory such as predictability and falsifiability now present too high a bar, since we've been softened up by the commonly accepted notions of quantum uncertainty, indeterminacy, Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of QM, etc. It's almost like the flights of fancy taken by people like Loeb are a compensatory phenomena, to make up for a very conspicuous lack of mainstream theoretical (not technical and engineering!) progress in the last forty years or so.

  • PhysicsForDummies,


    Thanks for bringing this topic up BTW. Interestingly, the LENR community has the same problem as mainstream science in a way. What to do with the outliers, or dissenters, of the official "narrative"?


    In my short time being involved, I have been privileged to observe the same internal dynamics playing out within the LENR community, as has mainstream science had to deal with in their ageless, and constant struggle to come to a consensus.

  • Yes, I also have to maneuver on spherical nodules, although I came up with it myself and go ahead, but no one ever believed that they would work, but they did. And helium and other gases are just a tip here, you can do whatever you want here. I got a whole minute of reactor operation without voltage, which is a lot for me. I started with propane, now helium has appeared, but so far what I got before is not working. We just need to keep working so that everything is at hand and we will get everything, and I don't know what yet. I am a simple geologist-geophysicist and I work on the theory of plate tectonics, we all need to do these experiments here and we will get something-that's for sure! https://drive.google.com/u/0/u…XXGJmrE...export=download

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Roger keeps pushing his Theory with the added Bonus of Important Nuclear Bomb discovery thought of by a Man

    crossing the street in London.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • It has always been the case:

    • lots of rubbish is published
    • many ideas published in science are wrong


    In fact those two things are necessary if science is to progress.


    Maybe the standard of debate is less than it once was: stating hypotheses as fact. But Scientific American, like any popular journal, does not really count. Its role is to publicise science of interest to readers, not to contribute to the scientific debate as to what is mots likely.

  • Another example of outrageously unverifiable non-sense are all these absolute statements about exoplanets.

    I have never seen publications which detail the measurements, error analysis, and assumptions that went into these proclamations.

    As an example, the "diamond planets", along with detailed artists renderings of the interior of the planet.


    Everything We Know About The Planet Made Of Diamonds (msn.com)


    I love this particular assertion by the author, has this assumption ever been made in the past? Groundbreaking discovery?

    You know certain ECW types will take this new "discovery" and extrapolate it to all sorts of fantastic predictions.


    "The identification of a carbon-rich super-Earth means that distant rocky planets can no longer be assumed to have chemical constituents, interiors, atmospheres, or biologies similar to those of Earth"

  • . Interestingly, the LENR community has the same problem as mainstream science in a way. What to do with the outliers, or dissenters, of the official "narrative"?


    In my short time being involved, I have been privileged to observe the same internal dynamics playing out within the LENR community, as has mainstream science had to deal with in their ageless, and constant struggle to come to a consensus.

    I think any theory about LENR must also abide by the requirement for testable predictions, otherwise it is nearly worthless.

    It might not be clear right away what these predictions or tests might be, but these theorists must at least propose math and equations which can be studied and extended.

    It is the self-appointed experts with no formal training that spew word salad that really drive me crazy.

    Especially when they speak as if they know everything and speak in certainty.

    They do a complete disservice to LENR by completely trashing our reputations.

    Of course, the experimentalists are of great importance even without a theory. I am not dismissing that.

  • Hi everyone,

    On behalf of the “press,” I would like to mention a few things. I worked as a Foreign Correspondent/journalist/broadcaster in various media from 1981 to 2015. I see the “press” rightfully criticized, but it seems to me that as soon as cable TV, then the Internet, expanded, the “press” was in many ways doomed.

    When I started in journalism, I was given a week to put together a story, research it, proceed with interviews, discuss it with editors, get guidance, etc, etc. That was in addition to light editing duties. We all had specialties, meaning that if you were going to do science stories, you were expected to have degrees and experience in that field.

    By the time I retired, I was expected (for the same salary) to put together several stories a day as a “specialist” on every possible topic under the sun – in addition to editing, voicing, TV, and two 25-minute weekly programs. If I was lucky, I would have time to “Google” information before interviews, avoiding making a fool of myself. It was not unheard of for me – for lack of time – to simply tell the person I was interviewing: “Look, I’m a generalist. I have no idea what this is about, so you guide me.” Then I had to use all of my brain matter and all the information I could quickly Google to figure out whether I was being misled or whether the other person made some sense and the information was worth using. Often, there was no time to contact anyone else for second opinions. One had to add a general caveat at the end.

    Management did not care – it wanted content - and it was always made clear that once I was gone, I would most likely be replaced by a less expensive contractor. In the end, my weekly Science program was cancelled after I left. My initial replacement mused that he “didn’t know how she had done it.” I was happy for him it was cancelled. The job had become ridiculous. I was sitting down in front of my computer at 8 a.m. and worked non-stop, eating in front of the computer, running to the bathroom a couple time or the studios before it was time to go home, so wound-up I could no longer think.

    Due to its ever growing size, the Internet needs to be fed. Which is why so many stories are simply rehash of other stories. Solid Science web sites do produce good science stories, but they get lost in the ocean of sites. How to choose, how to find, how to sift, what to believe, how many hours a day to allocate to finding “true, informative” stories?

    The disappearance of print papers, especially local papers, has also been an utter disaster. They focused the public, just like the 7 p.m. news with Walter Cronkite used to do. Nowadays, people go on the web and just choose the news they want to hear. They have no idea whether what they read/hear is true or not, biased or not, well put together or not.

    Another challenge nowadays it to present such complex issues as LENR in as simple a way as possible, so that your average reader can understand what is at stake. Readers’ attention span has diminished considerably. People used to get home and have a full evening to read the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS. They now multi-task. Stories are shorter. Long ones win prizes, but are often ignored by readers.

    Finally, the explosion of “Fusion” stories in the past six months is not helping LENR. Any journalist trying to do a story on LENR will have to differentiate it from “Fusion” since it’s not “Fusion,” cold or hot. An additional source of confusion for journalists, who may then turn to “easier” or “sexier” stories, more likely to garner “Likes” or “Read” and earn them praise – or simply help them keep their jobs as contractors. Because as contractors, they may have quotas to produce.

    Give “the press” a break. Like everyone, it is struggling in a brave new “Internet” world. It may be guilty, but it has plenty of help from the public.

  • Give “the press” a break. Like everyone, it is struggling in a brave new “Internet” world. It may be guilty, but it has plenty of help from the public.

    Yes, generalists, popularizers of science, we would naturally give a good deal of leeway in what they write, taken with a good dose of salt. I do the same with 'scientists' now. The later should at least give caveats, such as "I believe", "my opinion", etc. Like the difference between news pieces and opinion pieces in newspapers, one would wish there should be a demarcation. These days, I assume most pieces from scientists are laced with bias with a touch of proselytism.

  • These days, I assume most pieces from scientists are laced with bias with a touch of proselytism.


    You are quite right. Through the course of a 60 year working life I have spent 25 or do working on commercial research projects- first biotech, then developing polymers adhesives and sealants, paint formulations- and possibly more I have forgotten. Currently working in the green chemistry field.


    Back in the 70's if you had a good idea for a product or a process people would generally be curious and also quick to take it up. In 1975 I developed a special non-slip oil resistant polymer for making the soles of high-end boots for people working on offshore rigs. Within a year people were wearing the first 'test' boots in the Brent oilfield. Scientists then were seldom required to be salesmen, in fact scientists who did court publicity were rather looked down on, you had to wait for the world to notice you.


    My current experience shows me that now you have to be a salesmen first and (sadly) a scientist second. There's just too many distractions perhaps, people lack focus.