If you aren't willing to write of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions AKA cold fusion (had to look that up) by now, when will you think it appropriate?
It is now 30 years on from Pons and Fleischman's famous mistake and we have had a tiny smattering of irreproducible results and a mass of reproducible non-results.
The point about lack of a theory is a nice way to say that there isn't any plausible explanation why researchers who produced watts of excess energy didn't die of either neutron or gamma flux. All of the supposed explanations that I have heard have been tens of orders of magnitude off of the mark.
So what kind of reasonable dismissal of LENR would you find not presumptuous?
Hmm, it's a fair question. I pretty much have written off LENR as has most everyone else, my comment was that I try not to disparage people who haven't written it off, I just set my expectations that something that will come from it at zero.
The difference is that I feel it is a perfectly legitimate scientific pursuit to understand what is going on in a LENR experiment producing unexplained results, even if I personally don't expect it to produce any meaningful results. I know its a fine line, I totally dismiss creationists trying to 'prove' that the world is only 6,000 years old, even though they tell me they have approached it 'scientifically.'
It is now 30 years on from Pons and Fleischman's famous mistake and we have had a tiny smattering of irreproducible results and a mass of reproducible non-results.
The point about lack of a theory is a nice way to say that there isn't any plausible explanation why researchers who produced watts of excess energy didn't die of either neutron or gamma flux. All of the supposed explanations that I have heard have been tens of orders of magnitude off of the mark.
So what kind of reasonable dismissal of LENR would you find not presumptuous?