[grovulent]

If you believe we do indeed have that degree of certainty - then you believe the experiments are indeed a waste of time, and that the experimenters are behaving irrationally - contra 3).

I think they are rational - and certainly it's rational for me to defer to their judgement on the matter.

That's fine if you don't agree. But if you're replying in order to help me update my beliefs, then you'll need to provide a rebuttal to 3) - which you haven't. :)

[dzdt]

The rationality of performing the tests is social and societal reasons. The lab doing this has funding to test out-of-the mainstream ideas that could lead to new propulsion systems. By testing this kind of thing, even if they also 'know' it won't work, they get publicity and attention for themselves. It helps to keep the funding rolling, and builds operational experience testing small effects, and gives the scientists a chance to play "what if" thinking about possible new physics.

[grovulent]

That's quite a reasonable, if cynical, reply.

To be honest I don't know how to evaluate the which of these two explanations of the scientist's behaviour are more likely.

I'd like to see some data on how much one can obtain funding by performing what is, given your beliefs, literally garbage science.

If we can establish at least precedent that scientists can attract funding on the basis of their projects that were (at the time, not in hindsight) - un-controversially junk research. Then your explanation would have the upper hand.

If we can establish a clear pattern of such rewards, then you win a slam dunk.

[physPop]

There is a large difference between well thought out research ideas that break the mould (which absolutely deserve a fair chance and funding opportunities) versus those that are diametrically opposed to our current understanding of well tested science. The EmDrive is not the former.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The rationality of performing the tests is social and societal reasons.

The rationality of performing the tests is that it's the basis of science. If someone claims something is possible, the role of science is not to respond with contempt and condescension, it is to prove the matter one way or the other. If the claimant is a crackpot then the experiment will prove it, which is what will happen most of the time. But not all of the time.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka" but "That's funny..." —Isaac Asimov

[talmand]

The history of science is littered with prestigious people who "knew" that an idea was not worth experimenting with, so they did not while justifying it with their definitive statements. It is also littered with not so prestigious people that didn't "know" that the idea was not worth experimenting with and they found something interesting, whether it relates to the initial subject of the experiment or not. Those people were crackpots until they were not, it's been the way of science for a long time.