There is n interesting video in French about Bayesian logic for the zetetician skeptic
it correct some bias , but finally it explains why people can safely have different opinions, depending on their known data and initial probabilities.
I think the difference in opinion between usual plasma/particle physicist, chemist, and engineers like me is related to the data we have, the confidence we have in various experimental facts and theories, the epistemological story or out domains.
Particle physics is a respected domain, having greatly succeed in its predictions since the 50s, with low competence thus trusts in calorimetry, and looking at LENR they find no neutrons, cannot even consider collective effects at nucleus scale, and consider their theory is bullet proof. They don't understand well the methods used for calorimetry and He4 analysis, and can safely assume there is an unknown error...
Chemist have longer trust in calorimetry, seen bullet proof for 2 centuries, and looking at many small details in experiment descriptions consider some of the best LENR experiment are bullet proof. Having seen many changes in theory, in QM, derivation of QM in practical chemistry, problem with approximations of QM in chemistry, knowledge of material science discoveries, they consider that QM "practices" (hidden assumptions, not necessarily core mathematics) have to be adapted, as usual. Looking at He4/Heat correlations, analyzing the details, they can judge if contamination is well controlled, and be even more convinced there is something nuclear (ie, not their fault), happening.
Engineers trained in semiconductors like me, with a knowledge of pas innovations from greek electricity, to transistors, Branly coherer, superconductions, know that science is evolving, that theories, and even more the way we use them to solve engineering problems, is moving fast. BEC theory, the unexpected problem of doping in semiconductor, and metallurgy, and LENR, is well-known. Problem of collective effects is just logical, as it seems a trend in modern science and technology.
We trust chemist, physicist in their respective domain, but we know they have a huge ego on theory, thus we trust their results not their judgments.
A farmer will probably be very conservative on his domain, but could be too much trusting one of the 3 population above, as he has seen huge progress in science, with deep effect on his practice...
When we accepted evidences, we in fact use some implicit trust, and we do some Bayesian analysis, comparing the weight of evidences in our perspective, and the weight of past evidences supporting the opposite point, in our perspective too.
I accepted LENR first as an evident anomaly probably caused by a very tricky new artifact, with hope of unexpected applications, trusting both the evidences that seemed good, and the mainstream corpus which was successful. Now, in the perspective of semiconductor and nanotechnology engineering, it seems evident that not only LENR is real, nuclear, but also a collective QM effect... For me it is a coherent, self-evident conclusion, in line with the long trend of science and technology.
The way it is opposed is not new, but I suspect the globalization of groupthink by US high impact journals and Ivy League universities, transmitted by state funding, citation index and funding panels, make it much more unavoidable than under Galileo time, where in fact science was less controlled, at least less centralized.