No - first you need data to construct a theory. We are providing that.
Alan - your statement does not contradict mine. (or perhaps it does, and is wrong. Not quite sure what you mean by "no").
"LENR" is a statement. Specifically it is a statement that whatever are the reasons for those anomalies a good number of them must be caused by nuclear reactions.
The fact that you need data to construct a theory is irrelevant, also the fact that you are obtaining data,
You can have all the data in the world : it must still be a match of theory to results that leads to a LENR conclusion rather than a "quantum spookiness heat effect" or a "weird chemical reaction effect" or a "God looks down on us and delivers heat" or a "certain chemicals induce local brain anomalies in lenr researchers" or even, it seems a popular topic here, "the whole thing is set up by secret russian agents" explanation for the experimental data.
You take the data and match each of these hypotheses, and others more plausible, to find what is the best fit.
If you said you were investigating anomalies with an open mind and no supposition there were nuclear reactions then it would be different. Then the field might be called FPHE or something.
Interestingly - LENR as a statement is not enough - because it does not deliver a theory. It is what you get at the end of the whole process, collecting data, finding a predictive theory to explain it, and then if that theory predicts nuclear reactions you have LENR.
Not quite sure why there is any disagreement here - I am just stating clearly what everyone knows, and it is neither pro nor con LENR - just open-minded. perhaps that is the issue? On here one needs to post not-open-minded on the topic of LENR?
Surely not!