Being offended.

Are True Nerds the same counterpart to True Christians? FYI I used to watch all of the Star Treks! Im less familiar with Star Wars, though their weird spiritual interpretations of the Force or forces guiding the universe are predictable. And to be honest, without Star Trek, it is doubtful todays nerds would have had the inspiration to make JWST, Hubble, The Mars Global Surveyor, and a plethora of technological benefits that science has given us. My argument centers on human nature.

​ Well ... define worship.You know us true nerds do worship the genre. Firefly is playing. Got to worship that show. But not in the religious zealous way Phat wants to imaging but more like the worship I used to give my girls ... lower regions ... reveling in the thoughts of the gifts I was about to receive. That kinda delicious happy worship.

That's just fiction. Also just fiction. I was never into either Star Wars or Star Trek. They are okay entertainment, but not very realistic.

Your sarcasm reveals a lot about your ideas of worship.

I watched only a very few. They quickly became tiresome. Then you do not understand what motivates scientists.

Perhaps I don't. Can someone enlighten me? We already know what motivates believers...so in all fairness lets discuss the other side.

Scientists are mostly motivated by an intense curiosity.

No one worships Star Wars in the sense of worshipping a god.
Again you dabble in fallacies. Look up equivocation. You RWNJ"s and fundies use it all the time.
If you can't find it let me know. I will draw you a map.

It is fucking a story you idiot.

I think FireFly was the best show of the genre. Hated they just kind of wrapped it up with Serenity, but they did a good job with the movie. I also really enjoyed Farscape and Babylon 5.
Was never a big Star Trek fan.

Having a strong curiosity, most scientists are motivated by acknowledgement; seen as right by their peers. Ego and reputation are major concerns. And since in science you receive the highest accolades for being right the scientist's biggest and best motivation is to be right.Priests, contrary, are concerned with being wrong. The wrong god, the wrong sex, the wrong way to have sex, etc.

You don't even think WRONG exists. Satan sure fooled you! And I can imagine why you are so angry with those Priests. They tried to molest you and yet wouldn't let you molest women!

Yep, curiosity is the prime ingredient for a scientist, but there is this emotional response that I think of as the "joy of discovery" and communicating those discoveries and getting credit for them (human ego). All the good scientists I know don't mind being incorrect and would be horrified at being shown to be a fraud, the ultimate in self betrayal.I am fortunate to have 4 best friends who also are interesting in studying the same sciences I do. We test our hypotheses about everything with each other first to see if the others can shoot them down. Good scientists try to find every flaw in their arguments to avoid public and personal humiliations.Whenever I hear the term "Cold Fusion" I think of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who made an error in science communication that forever stained their reputations as scientists.

Wikipedia:

---

Cold fusion is a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature. It would contrast starkly with the "hot" fusion that is known to take place naturally within stars and artificially in hydrogen bombs and prototype fusion reactors under immense pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees, and be distinguished from muon-catalyzed fusion. There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur.

​

In 1989, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, reported that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes.[1] They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[3] The reported results received wide media attention[3] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4]

​

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10] Presently, since articles about cold fusion are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for mainstream scientific publications.[11]

​

Nevertheless, some interest in cold fusion has continued through the decades—for example, a Google-funded failed replication attempt was published in a 2019 issue of Nature.[12][13] A small community of researchers continues to investigate it,[6][14][15] often under the alternative designations low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS).

---

Cold fusion

We'll just take your word for that, shall we? No.Zero probability just means there is no evidence. If evidence is ever found, the probability would go up. You contradict yourself. You just said that zero probability would prove. No such thing as "subjective evidence". It's right there in the word: evident. If it isn't evident to everybody, it isn't evidence.

If you're going to use definitions, at least get them right. Confidence is not the same as either trust or faith. Dynamite can actually move mountains. No such thing as subjective evidence. No. Your love for your children would be easily demonstrable. If they're well-fed and clothed, if they're sheltered and educated, that's evidence that you love them. If they cringe when you come near them, that would be evidence that you don't.By your fruits we shall know you. Fruit is evidence. Well, in this thread alone you've demonstrated that you don't know the difference between subjective and objective - or the difference between confidence and faith. Most of us here have been around the block a couple of times. All of us could write a long list of all the things we can do. I make a mean broccolli soup myself.Some of us are capable of saying something stupid once in a while too. We know what you tell us. The "o" in my name stands for "off-topic". It's one of my favorite places, that and thin ice.And when I'm off topic, I'm often chasing Phat's evil heart.