Banished!

Or they're simply involved in a project, but haven't had anything worth
publishing. Making rather a lot of stew from a very small oyster, aren't
you?

Marciosos2 Probertiosos2 said:

"whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Check out the following URL.

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

The article lists the "researchers" as Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann.

I did a Google search on their names, eliminated all hits which contained
the other persons name, 1989 or cold fusion.

These guys have disappeared.

That is exactly what happens when you do junk science in the real world.

"Marciosos2 Probertiosos2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Check out the following URL.

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

The article lists the "researchers" as Stanley Pons and Martin

Fleischmann.

Quoted message said:

I did a Google search on their names, eliminated all hits which contained
the other persons name, 1989 or cold fusion.

These guys have disappeared.

That is exactly what happens when you do junk science in the real world.

True, but it'is hard not to feel a bit sorry for them. There is quite a
history in science and medicine of apparently reasonable folk being misled
by aberrant experimental or clinical results. The results may originally
have been due to artefact, contamination, statistical extremes, or there has
been some some other misinterpretion, but thereafter the researcher cannot
let go of the feeling that there is something important there, just out of
reach, and no amount of negative results will convince them otherwise.
Benveniste and his studies on the memory of water is an example. Some
sincere quack cancer therapists e.g. Hoffer, Gerson, are others.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

"Heather James" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Or they're simply involved in a project, but haven't had anything worth
publishing. Making rather a lot of stew from a very small oyster, aren't
you?

There's not a chance they're "involved in a project." No institution would
provide funding for them now, and no other researchers would trust them to
collect or process data. They are more likely selling real estate or working
in a Starbucks.

--Rich

Peter Moran said:

"Marciosos2 Probertiosos2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That is exactly what happens when you do junk science in the real world.

True, but it'is hard not to feel a bit sorry for them. There is quite a
history in science and medicine of apparently reasonable folk being misled
by aberrant experimental or clinical results. The results may originally
have been due to artefact, contamination, statistical extremes, or there has
been some some other misinterpretion, but thereafter the researcher cannot
let go of the feeling that there is something important there, just out of
reach, and no amount of negative results will convince them otherwise.

Noguchi and his "spirochetes" are an example. He was a brilliant
microbiologist, but he became obsessed with them as a cause of
disease, and spent the last few years of his life trying to prove
they caused various things we now know are viral.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

"Heather James" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Or they're simply involved in a project, but haven't had anything worth
publishing.

Heather, when I conduct a search, I look for the person at all known
previous addresses. University web sties have search capability, and these
two fellows were not at their old haunts.

Furthermore, many university websites have the professors CV on line, and a
Google search will find them. I head my HS's search committee and do this
type of searching nearly daily.

These fellows have disappeared.

Making rather a lot of stew from a very small oyster, aren't

Quoted message said:

you?

Nope, not at all. Obviously you do not see the significance of this event in
the history of science and how it shows up the new Altmed mantra.

A URL has been posted that leads to an article that describes how one can
determine that they are reading junk science. The cold fusion matter exactly
parallels that.

Now, look at the practices of AltMed in a similar context....the pushers of
a substance/treatment/program go from theory to press conference and sales.
Quite similar to what was done by the two guys in cold fusion. However, in
that case, their peers attempted to replicate their findings, and when no
one could, the deception was outed.

However, in AltMed, when someone pushes something new, instead of their
competitors challenging their assertions, the competotors jump on the gravy
train and push their brand of the same untested potion, etc.

Now, do you see what the cold fusion fiasco is so important? If not, then
consider it is proof that the system of scientific inquiry actually works,
and shows up the fact that Alt Med is all sales hype.

Quoted message said:

Marciosos2 Probertiosos2 said:

"whiplash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Check out the following URL.

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm

The article lists the "researchers" as Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann.

I did a Google search on their names, eliminated all hits which

contained

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the other persons name, 1989 or cold fusion.

These guys have disappeared.

That is exactly what happens when you do junk science in the real world.

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote

<snip>

Quoted message said:

True, but it'is hard not to feel a bit sorry for them. There is quite a
history in science and medicine of apparently reasonable folk being misled
by aberrant experimental or clinical results. The results may originally
have been due to artefact, contamination, statistical extremes, or there has
been some some other misinterpretion, but thereafter the researcher cannot
let go of the feeling that there is something important there, just out of
reach, and no amount of negative results will convince them otherwise.
Benveniste and his studies on the memory of water is an example. Some
sincere quack cancer therapists e.g. Hoffer, Gerson, are others.

Peter Moran

Sounds a lot like Andrew Wakefield, hmmm?

Mark, MD

Marciosos2 Probertiosos2 said:

Now, do you see what the cold fusion fiasco is so important? If not, then
consider it is proof that the system of scientific inquiry actually works,
and shows up the fact that Alt Med is all sales hype.

From what I gather, you don't realize the true significance either. Here
is an opinion about a very interesting book that goes into great detail
concerning the cold fusion research and other scientific controversies:

http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/edito/8-4a.htm

--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org

Kristofer D. Dale said:

Marciosos2 Probertiosos2 said:

Now, do you see what the cold fusion fiasco is so important? If not, then
consider it is proof that the system of scientific inquiry actually works,
and shows up the fact that Alt Med is all sales hype.

From what I gather, you don't realize the true significance either. Here
is an opinion about a very interesting book that goes into great detail
concerning the cold fusion research and other scientific controversies:

http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/edito/8-4a.htm

Cold fusion is about as controversial in science as whether the earth
is flat.

Isn't "cold fusion" made with vodka?

"DrDemento" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kristofer D. Dale said:

Marciosos2 Probertiosos2 said:

Now, do you see what the cold fusion fiasco is so important? If not,

then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

consider it is proof that the system of scientific inquiry actually

works,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and shows up the fact that Alt Med is all sales hype.

From what I gather, you don't realize the true significance either. Here
is an opinion about a very interesting book that goes into great detail
concerning the cold fusion research and other scientific controversies:

http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/edito/8-4a.htm

Cold fusion is about as controversial in science as whether the earth
is flat.