Talk:Reproducibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated Start-Class) Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Science This article is part of WikiProject Science, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Science. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. WikiProject Rational Skepticism      (Rated Start-Class) This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Previous versions of this article were, to say the least, rather strange. I've cut away a lot of non-sequiturs and stuff that was just plain wrong, and marked what remains as a stub. -- Anon.

[edit] Cold fusion

Carrionluggage is unhappy with the statement in the notes: "See the U.S. DoE 2004 Cold Fusion Review which states that half the reviewers found the evidences of excess heat convincing, and 1/3 found the evidences of nuclear reactions convincing.".

This issue has been discussed at large at the cold fusion article (in particular here), which represents the consensus that emerged. This is not the place to repeat the debate, but here are some quick pointers:

• page 3 paragraph 3 of the report discusses the views of the reviewers on "excess heat" (starting with "The excess power..."). Please read carefully as this is the central issue of the debate.
• page 4 paragraph 2 of the report discusses the views of the reviewers on "evidences of low energy nuclear reations". Again please read it carefully.

While the report raises many issues with the current state of the field, one cannot say it is "preponderently negative" about the evidences supporting the phenomenon, as the 2 paragraphs show. Its successful independent reproduction convinced some, while the lack of repeatability bothered others.

If you still disagree, you are likely to disagree on the content of the cold fusion article too. Please raise your points in the cold fusion talk page, so that it can be addressed in the proper audience. Pcarbonn 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)