[extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey

[Ben Goertzel]

Robin Hanson wrote:
> I find it fascinating that there has been such a long dispute here on 
> cold fusion (CF) without an attempt to clarify that anyone actually 
> disagrees about anything.  
Robin, I think the fact of disagreement is QUITE clear.  

{Keith, Damien, Eliezer} and I may not agree with {John Clark, Eugen} 
about CF but we am confident we agree with them **that we disagree**  ;-)

>  Please, disputants and interested 
> observers, offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for 
> these four probabilities:
>
> 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as 
> opposed to misleading experimental technique.
>   
[.7 , .9]

> 2A.  The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and 
> indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry 
> detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure.
>   
Conditional on it being real, the odds seem > .9 that it indicates 
fundamental new physics

> 1B.  The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further 
> research into CF.
>   

.01   [but the amount of research of course depends on the probability]

> 2B.  The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further 
> research into CF.
>
>   

0

-- Ben