tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post113649913578434953..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Wiki: Cold FusionWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1136739907135009942006-01-08T17:05:00.000+00:002006-01-08T17:05:00.000+00:00Hi Lubos. Thanks for that contribution on Cold Fus...Hi Lubos. Thanks for that contribution on Cold Fusion - very helpful I think. Will it convince the nutters? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>As a gesture of peace, you may now consider yourself unbanned here, though moderation for profanity will continue. Welcome back.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1136732554819805042006-01-08T15:02:00.000+00:002006-01-08T15:02:00.000+00:00I agree. The crackpots who promote a certain pseud...I agree. The crackpots who promote a certain pseudoscience are very efficient in copying pseudofacts meant to celebrate their agenda, but they don't care about the basic questions like whether it can be shown what is the actual answer to the questions they want to ask.<BR/><BR/>Cold fusion is one example. There are many others. Burkhard Heim's fans (a German crackpot). Shahriar Afshar with the self-promotion of his absurdly interpreted experiment. Loop quantum gravity. And yes, global warming. These people just don't want to listen.<BR/><BR/>I've tried to add a basic explanation why cold fusion is nonsense which was not there, at least not transparent enough.Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1136584640775769222006-01-06T21:57:00.000+00:002006-01-06T21:57:00.000+00:00I hope I'm not encouraged by the idea that you cou...I hope <I>I'm not encouraged by the idea that you could be one of the more sane contributors to that debate, any more than if I</I> is not quite what you meant: I'm sure you and I are fully sane. What we lack is knowledge. The problem is of those who have knowledge but are not sane.<BR/><BR/>But yes, I meant of the the problems of wikipedia in reporting these things. The same thing applies to Tesla. But... where else (on the web) are you going to get your info on CF from?<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, the Economist has ripped off a wiki graph on probability this week (it attributes it, but I'm not sure thats good enough).William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1136539319154189212006-01-06T09:21:00.000+00:002006-01-06T09:21:00.000+00:00its also interesting as an illustration of the pro...<I>its also interesting as an illustration of the problems of psuedo/fringe science</I><BR/><BR/>I presume you mean the problems of Wikipedia. I'm not encouraged by the idea that you could be one of the more sane contributors to that debate, any more than if I were to get involved.<BR/><BR/>At least by googling widely I <I>know</I> that the onus is on me to decide which sources are credible, rather than perhaps being tempted (fooled?) into to relying on wikipedia's status.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.com