[flowerplough]

You prefer data. As do most. As does William of Occam.

Got any?

[aruanan]

You prefer data. As do most. As does William of Occam.

William of Occam was interested in a parsimonious explanation, not in reams of data.

As to the meaning of data: A device from which the initial electrical input has been disconnected that continues to produce >410C steam for many hours is producing lots and lots of data. Technical specifications about how it's constructed and the materials used in its construction are not data. Notations about measurable changes in the output of the device over time are data. The explanation of the underlying physical phenomenon, though, is not an example of data, though it may be supported or not by data. And someone's explanation of the underlying physical phenomenon may turn out to have no basis in fact, but that still doesn't mean the phenomenon does not or cannot exist.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Got any?"

Yup. There are lots of reports from the scientists who attended the various demonstrations. Most of those have data. And for the scientifically trained, you can garner a lot from some of the videos on points not mentioned in the writeups, but which "match" what the writeups are saying.

The "anti-CF" bunch are trying to sell the idea that those tests were all either bogus or so badly done as not to prove anyting.

And the people doing those tests and observations are NOT "scientific lightweights". But I beg to differ on that point. If it is NOT outright fraud, and a masterpiece of fakery on a level with Piltdown Man, then the data says it is real. I am a VERY experienced experimentalist and design instrumentation for a living, and the tests were actually very well done, with key variables monitored (or at least measured) by multiple different means.