QUOTE(Mathsci @ Mon 21st September 2009, 5:17pm)
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Mon 21st September 2009, 5:33am)
QUOTE(Mathsci @ Sun 20th September 2009, 12:32am)
I'm quite happy to see pseudoscience articles deleted - it occupies very little of my time.
Why? Leave aside the barrow-pushers, but what is inherently wrong with articles on pseudoscience?
They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, because they're usually just meaningless nonsense. They are a side-effect of the internet, that wonderful tool for self-promotion. Editors on WP can try to debunk pseudoscience (using RS), but that can often cause more trouble than it's worth if the pseudoscientists are living and active on the internet.
Hydrino theory is a good example of a discredited pseudoscientific theory which apparently for the time being does not merit a separate wikipedia article.
Well, I fully understand the thinking, but hydrino theory is more than just something promoted by BlackLight Power, and having
Hydrino (T-H-L-K-D) as a simple redirect to BlackLight Power is pretty misleading. Sure, Mills is the original theorist, but there is RS that doesn't mention BlackLight Power.
However, that's just an opinion. The matter should be decided according to what is in reliable source, not according to my opinion or Mathsci's opinion or LeadSongDog's opinion. It's obvious that hydrino theory isn't "generally accepted," indeed, the opposite. But it is a huge encyclopedia, and having a couple of articles, fairly short, dealing with hydrinos, Blacklight Power, or any other notable aspect, notability as shown by presence in reliable source, is to be expected, normally.
I see no basis for calling hydrino theory "pseudoscience," yet. Absolutely, challenges very well-accepted theory, but challenge to accepted theory does not make for "pseudoscience," not when the techniques and methods of science are being used. There are obvious reasons to be skeptical of both hydrino theory and the claims of BlackLight Power, but it is not at all the job of Wikipedia editors to make these judgments or to overlay an opinion on the articles, but rather, it's an obligation to follow the sources and find consensus.
Hydrinos are one of the explanations advanced for cold fusion. I may think that's bogus, for a number of reasons, but the fact is that it is in relaible source, independently published. That deserves a mention in the cold fusion article; it actually made it there, and stuck for a while, having been accepted by Hipocrite, until WMC, your hero and martyr, reverted it out with his "lets wind everyone up" edit.
There has been argument against hydrino theory, as is to be expected. It is not accepted, as is to be expected. Biut I have not seen anything so far that actually "discredits" it, until and unless the experimental evidence asserted is impeached successfully. Otherwise, at the very least, hydrino theory stands as a conceivable explanation of one or more anomalies, unconfirmed.
The situation is quite different with cold fusion itself. Low energy nuclear reactions are abundantly confirmed, recognized in reliable source, and the weight of reliable source overall, favoring the reality of LENR, is huge. Only by determined and persistent rejection of peer-reviewed reliable source have the skeptics been able to keep the story of what was called
by skeptics "the scientific fiasco of the twentieth century" out of Wikipedia. One article? I have material from skeptics, enough for quite a few articles, plus all the other material which is weightier, overall.
Did you know that JzG's supposedly skeptical friend, the electrochemist whom he practically worshipped, and to whom he ascribed his views on cold fusion, actually believed that the excess heat was real, according to JzG, and simply that it wasn't likely to be nuclear in origin, but due to some other unknown explanation? Science has been built from investigating anomalies, not from rejecting them as "unidentified experimental error."
But there are a whole series of facts that somehow got overlooked by many in the process of burying cold fusion, such as excess heat/helium correlation at the right Q value, confirmed by multiple independent groups, known by the mid-1990s. And certainly JzG's friend wasn't going to see the reports of the Q value in the Wikipedia article, which is what he was commenting on to JzG, it was systematically excluded in spite of abundant presence in multiple peer-reviewed secondary sources, supposedly the gold standard, passed over in favor of weak sources stating what is recognized as a total misunderstanding by an anonymous bureaucrat.
Had it been there, the electrochemist might have said, "Hmm.... what's this? Is this real? Let me look at that source .... Really? I'm going to have to think about this!"
Mathsci, you have helped a total ignoramus on science, Enric Naval, who didn't know the difference between nuclei, atoms, and molecules, literally, and who didn't know the difference between a correlation and a anecdotal result, sit on cold fusion, so, you will get what you richly deserve. A promise. And I don't have to lift a finger. But I will anyway, whether you can imagine it or not.
JzG, same old same old, Repeats old claims
Abd JzG, same old same old Mon 14th September 2009, 3:12pm
Mon 14th September 2009, 3:12pm
