>>13808583>The people on this board are more like accountants than scientists.Lets just be clear here:
On this board the only way to debate in a sensible fashion is using reliable information.
Peer review carries a much higher weight than some random article in vogue magazine.
You're confusing Allan Sovory's statement about science IN THE FIELD with forum debate.
How does non-peer review work realistically?
Example:
1. Cold fusion is a hoax. (That is official academic dogma currently)
2. The US government will not issue patents related to cold fusion
So what must the scientist do that is a proponent of cold fusion?
Either:
1. Prove its net positively viable through an iron clad theoretical proof (Which is almost impossible). And even then it has to be verified experimentally. For example Einstein had to wait for confirmation of general relativity in 1919 although he published the paper years before.
2. The big one: Generate net positive power using cold fusion.
Number two is the kicker. If you can generate electrical power using cold fusion, well you've won. Doesn't matter what any other scientist says, you've got an artifact showing it works. It can be duplicated.
The ONLY scientific truth is observation and experimentation and it does win out in the end.
