Talk:Cold fusion: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→please stop trying to push your biased point of view here: new section) |
imported>Hayford Peirce |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
== please stop trying to push your biased point of view here == | == please stop trying to push your biased point of view here == | ||
Jed, you are relentlessly trying to undo what is a neutral, as well as a more truthful, approach to this subject. You obviously believe that cold fusion exists. Almost no one else in the world does -- and this article should reflect that fact clearly. Please stop your reversions to earlier versions by you -- while they are not exactly dishonest, they | Jed, you are relentlessly trying to undo what is a neutral, as well as a more truthful, approach to this subject. You obviously believe that cold fusion exists. Almost no one else in the world does -- and this article should reflect that fact clearly. Please stop your reversions to earlier versions by you -- while they are not exactly dishonest, they are slanting the way the events unfolded in order to present the most positive version of the affair. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:05, 15 September 2008 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:05, 15 September 2008
|
| Metadata here |
Only a "few"?
Are you sure that it's only a "few" people who take the position that it's pseudoscience? I've followed this whole thing fairly carefully since its inception (being at the time a semi-hard science-fiction writer who, like my friend Jack Vance and other S.F. writers of my acquaintance, was blown away by the possibilities) and it seems to me that except for a few die-hards, it's long since been pretty much discredited.
But I'll certainly admit that there is a vast difference between being an advocate of a "pseudoscience" and being an advocate of an unpopular position that is somewhat outside the mainstream without being pushed by nuts and fanatics.
So maybe this is just a question of semantics in the CZ article?
My own impression of the article as at least the opening now stands is that there is not enough emphasis on the general rejection of the idea by the mainstream. But I certainly don't want to get into an ideological battle over this....
Cheers! Hayford Peirce 11:28, 14 September 2008 (CDT)
- It depends on how you define pseudoscience. I would say this was bad science but not necessarily pseudoscience. Chris Day 14:33, 14 September 2008 (CDT)
- That's my own feeling. So that I think it should be rewritten accordingly to say that whereas a few people think it's pseudoscience, most mainstream people simply consider it to be bad science. Hayford Peirce 15:46, 14 September 2008 (CDT)
Have rewritten the Intro to give a more skeptical view
I'm not an expert in this field, but I remember the initial excitement and the subsequent letdown. The Intro should reflect this actuality.
The more that I reread the initial effort here, the more I see it as a fairly unvarnished point of view that cold fusion actually exists.... Maybe it does -- but almost no reputable scientist believes that it does. Hayford Peirce 15:56, 15 September 2008 (CDT)
please stop trying to push your biased point of view here
Jed, you are relentlessly trying to undo what is a neutral, as well as a more truthful, approach to this subject. You obviously believe that cold fusion exists. Almost no one else in the world does -- and this article should reflect that fact clearly. Please stop your reversions to earlier versions by you -- while they are not exactly dishonest, they are slanting the way the events unfolded in order to present the most positive version of the affair. Hayford Peirce 16:05, 15 September 2008 (CDT)