&gt; &quot;Whatever this guy writes about and whatever he believes in, it is not about science.&quot;<p>You say that, but you&#x27;re ignoring the thrust of his argument.<p>Let&#x27;s say, for argument&#x27;s sake, that the results from Rossi&#x27;s experiment seem somewhat dubious. Easy to dismiss a single flawed experiment, right?<p>However, there have been at least four separate reproductions of the experiment results since then (article mentions reports of similar results from Sweden, Italy, Russia and China).<p>The main question raised by the article can be summarised as: If evidence of a reproducible experiment with unexplained results exists, which is usually a key indicator that the experiment warrants further investigation, why is there sometimes reluctance to investigate when this reproducibility comes along?<p>Science is not served well by dogma. Interesting results can come from unexpected places. The wilful ignorance of the reproducibility is the issue here.