Unknowns comments on ...so did we now get cold fusion to work or what? - Less Wrong

-10 Post author: Friendly-HI 25 May 2013 01:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (30)
Tags: energy fusion cold coal

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: satt 25 May 2013 03:39:50PM 1 point [-]

Might as well do this as a full-blown poll.

Q1. How has this paper led you to update your probability that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?

Q2. In general, how likely is it that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that could be exploited to generate power (even if exploitation requires further research)?

Submitting...

Comment author: Unknowns 30 May 2013 06:59:47PM 0 points [-]

It's interesting that 20 out of 27 people say that there was no change in their opinion. Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd. To a rough approximation, if a paper published on the subject could have provided evidence for it, but when investigated it failed to provide evidence, then we should update in favor of it being less likely. And if it succeeds in providing evidence, we should update in favor of it being more likely.

Likewise, if someone didn't read the paper, he could still update one way or the other based on the existence of the paper.

Comment author: gwern 31 May 2013 03:38:05AM *  1 point [-]

It's interesting that 20 out of 27 people say that there was no change in their opinion.

I was one of them, IIRC.

Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd. To a rough approximation

Yes. To a rough approximation. Excluding things like, 'I can't adjust my beliefs by such a small amount'.

Comment author: shminux 30 May 2013 07:31:05PM *  0 points [-]

Given conservation of expected evidence, this seems a bit odd.

Wrong event.

If someone tells me that they constructed a perpetual motion machine out of chains, cranks and pulleys, I do not expect to update my estimate of whether such a device is likely. I do however, expect to update my estimate of the probability of whether taking this person seriously is worthwhile.

If a serious scientist publishes an earnest paper claiming a revolutionary novel effect (like the superluminal neutrino paper last year), I would update my probability of this effect being real, until further information is available.

Rossi matches the pattern of a con artist, and none of the linked paper's authors appear to be experts in debunking clever schemes. After reading the paper I have lower opinion of the paper authors, so yes, I have updated.

Comment author: Unknowns 30 May 2013 07:43:18PM 1 point [-]

I agree with you about Rossi.

However, if someone makes the perpetual motion claim, unless you update your probability that they are worth taking seriously to 0%, you should also update your probability of the perpetual motion machine.

Comment author: bogdanb 30 May 2013 10:00:47PM 1 point [-]

I don’t need to estimate “worth taking seriously” to 0, just “too low to bother”. (E.g., the update to my “perpetual motion machin probability” would be lower than the margin of error of my estimates.)

Comment author: shminux 30 May 2013 08:10:55PM 0 points [-]

If you do, then you are prone to a version of the Pascal mugging attack: given enough false claims, you start taking them seriously.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit