I do not want to beat this subject to death, but I would like to say what while I agree with Joshua Cude here, we have to make a subtle distinction:
> And it’s not just Nature or SciAm. Science, all the APS journals, and most > others would regard cold fusion as fringe science. It doesn’t matter (for > this argument) if they are wrong about cold fusion or not; their perception > of it defines it as fringe. It is one of 3 examples of contemporary fringe > science on the Wikipedia entry on the subject. And whatever one thinks of > Wikipedia, it can’t be denied that this indicates that the perception I was > representing is not my own invention. > It is true that many people think cold fusion is a fringe subject. They are incorrect, but they think so. The thing is, being "fringe" or not is not a matter of opinion or perception. These people are biased. They are ignorant. Their views are analogous to the views of white racists in 1900 who did not realize there were any wealthy, high-achieving, superlative black people in the U.S. W. E. B. DuBois sponsored at photographic exhibit at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 to counter this perception. It shocked many Americans, and it revealed how inaccurate the mass media portrayal of black society was. See: http://www.theroot.com/views/web-du-bois-talented-tenth-pictures In other words, most white people in 1900 did not realize that by objective standards of education, achievement, wealth and so on, many black people were among the leading citizens and solid members of the mainstream. Opponents of cold fusion do not realize that most cold fusion researchers are distinguished scientists, and by objective scientific standards of replication, s/n ratios and so on, the research is mainstream. Cude cites Wikipedia as a standard. I think Wikipedia is biased and unreliable, for the reasons given here: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 I think it is better to judge by the weight of evidence in the peer reviewed literature. The fact that most scientists have not, in fact, judged by this standard is irrelevant. A scientist who has not read the literature carefully and evaluated it objectively has no standing, and no right to any opinion about cold fusion, positive or negative. Science is not a popularity contest. Cude also cited the opinion of John Rennie at the Sci. Am. I have corresponded with Rennie. I uploaded his comments. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam He told me that he has not read the literature because reading scientific paper is "not my job." As I said, that disqualifies him. He has no right to an opinion, and we should ignore anything he says about cold fusion. General knowledge of science is of no use when evaluating novel and unexpected experimental results. - Jed
