&gt; This article is funny. It tries to do an end-run around any criticism of the subject matter by constructing an elaborate piece of work to establish that if you don&#x27;t agree with the basic premise of low energy nuclear reactions there must be something pathologically wrong with you.<p>It&#x27;s really quite the other way around: the opponents of LENR research have treated everyone working on it as if there were something pathologically wrong with <i>them</i>.  The article is merely pointing out that this is not good science.<p>Skepticism is important, but it is not an infallible source of truth.  A lot of self-styled skeptics, ironically, refuse to apply their skepticism to itself.<p>As for raising expectations, I think a somewhat fine line has to be drawn.  There&#x27;s nothing wrong with talking about <i>possibilities</i> as a way of attracting attention and funding; what&#x27;s wrong is to cross the line into making <i>promises</i> not yet supported by results.