The "there were restriction" is the usual all or nothing excuse...
Independent means just that, independent.
Quote
in eral works there is restriction linked to business practice. real scientist respect that provided things stay honest
No, real scientists doesn't put their name under something they don't have full control over.
Quote
... when you desire to refuse, you take the first excuse.
No, you are guarding your good name against bad science or fraud.
Quote
what the scientist was needing is to be able to say "it does not work" or "we cannot check enough" , and they can.
the excuse of the blackbox, or the embargo on results until the final report is not a challenge to their honesty.
You do not know the restrictions Pons had to accept.
Quote
I don't see what Essen and Kullander have abandonned ?
They have abandoned their good judgement as senior scientists representing, willingly or not, science as a trustworthy institution.
Quote
they have seen it worked, they said it...
No, they say that the test result from the march 2013 is "interesting", but more testing is required before more final conclusions can be made.
Quote
Now nobody believe them, that is deniers problem. We should not inverse the reality.
Nobody believes them until truly independent tests are presented in a truly independent manner.
Quote
If you see something that work, assume just that you see it working, you cross check, it work ... what do you do ?
As I said, you have to be in full control of the test before you can state that it works. That is why Essén et al still haven't stated that. Still, they have lend their good reputation to an entrepreneur well known for shady business in the past.
Quote
Like Lewis and Garwin, you just kept silent ?
No, you can't compare Rossi with serious scientists like McKubre. That's my point!
Quote
That is your conception of honesty ? I imagine no.
Rossi and other more or less shady characters are symptoms of an unfortunate development of the field, starting with the infamies Utah press conference 1989. A couple of months later the new field became pariah and had to develop out of sight in a ghetto with little or no communication with the rest of the scientific community. A situation easy to exploit by less serious people.
Quote
That is the conception of honesty by some people I agree. Not mine.
The cf/lenr field needs more credibility, not less.