Are banned topics subject to revision?

[Posty McPostface]

As the title states.

There's been a flurry of research being done in Japan on a banned topic related to "LENR". I was wondering what is the burden of proof required to change minds on this topic? How or where may it be presented? Is the guiding principle that if it cannot be described by established physics, then it cannot be discussed with meaning?

 

[mfb]

Are banned topics subject to revision?

Sure.

I was wondering what is the burden of proof required to change minds on this topic?

More actual science than nonsense. In particular, peer-reviewed publications in high quality relevant journals. As long as vixra or similar websites are the preferred method to "publish" something it cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Dale]

I was wondering what is the burden of proof required to change minds on this topic?

To change my mind would require compelling evidence published in reputable peer reviewed journals by multiple independent teams.

 

[Borek]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[phyzguy]

A good example of revising a topic ban is climate science. These discussions were banned for a time and are now allowed if the discussions are about the science.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's been a https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322160963_Brief_Summary_Report_of_MHE_Project_Phenomenology_and_Controllability_of_New_Exothermic_Reaction_between_Metal_and_Hydrogen being done in Japan on a banned topic related to "LENR".

No, there hasn't. A flurry is a "sudden, short period". Japan has been working on this since 1989 and hasn't yet been able to produce a device that you can hand to a dispassionate third party and have her say "Yes, this produces more energy than it takes in", But somehow it's always right around the corner.

I was wondering what is the burden of proof required to change minds on this topic?

Certainly more than was in that paper you posted, which is pure, unadulterated crap. I am surprised that the Mentors left it up. It's not necessary to make your point and it doesn't meet PF standards - something that even you must accept given the thread title. There is nowhere near enough information in that paper to be understood, much less reproduced. It might as well be discussing magic beans.

 

[Posty McPostface]

Certainly more than was in that paper you posted, which is pure, unadulterated crap. I am surprised that the Mentors left it up. It's not necessary to make your point and it doesn't meet PF standards - something that even you must accept given the thread title.

I'm sorry. I tried to edit out the link from that post but seem not to be able to edit my posts anymore. I think I'll shut up for now.

 

[Dale]

I edited it