Re: [Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** OK, OK, you don't like any of Jed's examples. But here's one you may find harder to dismiss: For a couple of generations dinosaurs were said to be very much like big lizards: Cold blooded, slow moving, and most important, walking splay-legged. I think that in fields like geology or cosmology or paleontology, the time constant is longer than it is in small-scale research that is carried out on a bench top with all the parameters in the control of the experimenter. So, I've mentioned examples like continental drift, and to a lesser extent, black holes, which were accepted rather slowly, because nature does not reveal data so easily in these fields. Examples of small-scale phenomena rejected for decades and then vindicated are much scarcer. The best one I know of is the Semmelweis's germ theory and importance of hand-washing, and that goes back more than 150 years. If cold fusion is vindicated it will be (as Storms has said), and unprecedented case. So, the question we're left with is ... how do you know if the field you're working in is infected with a similar virus? I think looking at history is valuable to instill caution either way, but the best anyone can do in in a specific field, is to try to suppress bias, and look at the data itself as objectively as possible. Trying to diagnose viruses in others is probably counter-productive.
Re: [Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
On 11-11-15 10:49 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of treating theory as a form of religion. If theory were treated as religion... OK, OK, you don't like any of Jed's examples. But here's one you may find harder to dismiss: For a couple of generations dinosaurs were said to be very much like big lizards: Cold blooded, slow moving, and most important, walking splay-legged. No available evidence supported this point of view, and in fact it had been believed, before the dark ages of dinosaur research set in, that things had been different. Museums around the world during this period set up their dino exhibits with the legs splayed out to the sides; the ceratopsians looked like a bunch of Marine recruits, frozen in the middle of perpetual push-ups. The whole lot looked ridiculous, if you thought about it, but nobody did -- paleontological thinking outside the box was strongly discouraged, even stamped out, for at least a couple generations. The darkness finally lifted two or three decades back. Bakker's book, The Dinosaur Heresies, may have played a role in finally turning the lights on; it came out around the time that paleontologists finally started thinking again, rather than just following the rules. If you look at illustrations showing reconstructions of dinosaurs in museums, you'll still see that half or more show them in the old push-up poses, because there were so many drawn that way. (In some museums there may even be an explanation with the pictures, pointing out that they're totally wrong. IIRC the Yale-Peabody in New Haven has such explanations posted, for example.) The thing that's spooky about this is that the view of dinosaurs we (at least us oldsters) grew up with was wrong-headed in a number of ways, blatantly wrong-headed, and yet *nobody* within the field challenged it, for decades. It was as though all of the world's paleontologists had been infected with some virus that blinded them when it came to certain things, like dinosaurs -- and yet, they couldn't see it. So, the question we're left with is ... how do you know if the field you're working in is infected with a similar virus?
[Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: There is no dispute that Edison produced light. Nobody knew (or needed to know) the formula for his filaments, or challenged their possibility. There was no dispute that Edison produced light, because Farmer and many others had been doing that for 20 years before Edison. The dispute was over two issues: 1. Whether his lights could be used in parallel circuits, not just in series. 2. Whether his lights would last longer than a few hours. That is, whether he had found a method to create a high vacuum and seal the bulbs. Lot of people challenged those two possibilities. The parallel with cold fusion breaks down somewhat. In 1989 FP announced and within a years more than 100 labs replicated and published definitive proof. That part is similar to what happened in the 1850s. Here is where history diverges. In the 1850s, scientists still believed in primacy of experiments over theory, so they believed Farmer and the others. No one disputed the results. In a sane world, no one would have questioned the existence of cold fusion after 1990. Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of treating theory as a form of religion. Imagine that 20 years later, unfortunately, there had been little progress towards practical cold fusion, just as there was little progress in incandescent lights for 20 years. Many people say the effect will forever remain an laboratory curiosity with no practical value. Then along comes Rossi, and he uses methods similar to Edison. That is to say, he plagiarizes the most promising results from others, the way Edison borrowed vacuum pump technology and various other things. Rossi, Edison and Steve Jobs had a wonderful ability to spot other people's good ideas, and to improve on them. After deciding that Arata nanoparticle gas loading plus Piantelli's Ni is the best approach, Rossi then does a whole series of Edisonian style experiments. That is: an inspired, intuitive kind of trial and error, informed by deep knowledge and experience. Then Rossi announces his results, and we are right back to 1879 with Edison. Many other people who have been struggling to make the thing practical denounce Rossi / Edison, saying there is no way this outsider -- this interloper! -- could have stolen the march on us professors. They said his tests prove nothing, which is actually true of Edison, but not Rossi. They complain that he will not let anyone examine the bulbs or do an independent test. They said his results clearly violate theory. They yell that he is committing a fraud on the public. Some of these critics are ignorant. Others are jealous rivals, including some erstwhile friends of Edison. Rossi / Edison ignore this circus because their goal is not to convince the professors. Their goal is to make money. Edison goes on to found the General Electric Company. Rossi goes on to . . . that chapter has not been written yet. There are many parallels. That is not a bit surprising. Read the history of most other important breakthroughs in the last 250 years and you will find that most of them pan out along those lines. You always get a large crowd of skeptical detractors who claim it is a fraud and lunacy. These people are invariably ignorant. Even when they are well educated and capable of reading the facts and understanding the claims, they *never read anything*. Frank Close, Robert Park and Mary Yugo are modern examples. You get a crowd of academic scientists who insist that the discovery is a violation of theory and therefore it cannot exist. You can do 10 replications or demonstrations, or 100, or ten thousand. These people will not be swayed. The only way to get them to shut up is to sell lots of machines. Finally, there is usually a small number of savvy investors and bankers who have enough sense to fund the research. They end up getting the gravy. Great crowds of people, including many scientists, opposed Edison, the Wrights, the laser, the telegraph, the telephone, Semmelweis's method of reducing disease, the germ theory, evolution, the MRI, and just about every other major breakthrough. They didn't just oppose these things; they were livid with anger at them. They worked tirelessly to prevent them. Without a shred of proof, they ranted and raved that the discoverer is a fraud. The scientists among them are well described by Bill Beaty, here: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt Some breakthroughs, such as the x-ray and anesthetics do not meet much opposition. You can predict in advance whether a breakthrough will meet a little opposition, or a lot. The metric is simple. It has nothing to do with whether the breakthrough supposedly violates theory, or how novel it is, or whether it is practical. Science embraces multi-universe theory and string theory with aplomb. The breakthrough might save millions of lives, or it might threaten annihilation; neither factor makes the slightest bit of difference. Here is the only thing that
Re: [Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose, in a parallel universe, scientists in 1990 did science instead of treating theory as a form of religion. If theory were treated as religion, no one would have paid attention to PF, but they did. They were given a standing ovation from thousands at the ACS meeting. Scientists all over the world were giddy with excitement. And many nuclear physicists did experiments to test it. Why would the do that if they were religious. If theory were treated as religion, high temp superconductivity would have been rejected; no one would pay attention to the faster-than-light neutrino claims; indeed no one would have broadcast the result in the first place, being sure it was due to errors; no one would have paid attention to the notion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. And so on. In fact, there is no evidence that progress in science has slowed at all in the last 20 or 30 years. And scientists crave revolutionary and disruptive results as much as they ever did. It's very clear that honor, fame, glory, and funding come to those who make major discoveries. Not those who add decimal points. The most famous scientists are those who revolutionized fields. The buzz words in grant proposals are new physics or physics beyond the standard model. And that's why the world (the scientific world) went briefly nuts in 1989. Everyone wanted to be part of the revolution; no one wanted to be left behind. Here's a scientist quoted in a recent report in the Washington Post: “The theorists are now knotted up with conflicting emotions. As much as they support Einstein, they’d also love for the new finding to be true. It’d be weirdly thrilling. They’d get to rethink everything. If neutrinos violate the officially posted cosmic speed limit, the result will be the Full Employment Act for Physicists.” Imagine that 20 years later, unfortunately, there had been little progress towards practical cold fusion, just as there was little progress in incandescent lights for 20 years. Many people say the effect will forever remain an laboratory curiosity with no practical value. Many, but not all. But that's not what they're saying about cold fusion. They don't believe it happens at all. Not that it is impractical. If it isn't happening, it can't be practical. That makes it very different from the situation with electric light. Then Rossi announces his results, and we are right back to 1879 with Edison. No, because in spite of Rossi's dozen demos, people still don't believe in the proof-of-principle, something established decades earlier for Edison. Many other people who have been struggling to make the thing practical denounce Rossi / Edison, saying there is no way this outsider -- this interloper! -- could have stolen the march on us professors. Actually, you claimed before that not many of the people struggling to make cold fusion work were doubting Rossi. Have you changed your mind? I suspect there are some, but many cold fusion advocates, Storms e.g., also advocate Rossi. They said his tests prove nothing, which is actually true of Edison, but not Rossi. Not in the view of most scientists. All of Edison's tests proved light from electricity. None of Rossi's tests prove heat from nuclear reactions. They complain that he will not let anyone examine the bulbs or do an independent test. They said his results clearly violate theory. Who claimed Edison's tests violated theory? As for Rossi, they simply lack evidence. Scientists will accept revolutionary results, and love to be part of the discovery, but they will not reject a successful theory without good evidence. Rossi has not provided even weak evidence for his claims. There are many parallels. That is not a bit surprising. Read the history of most other important breakthroughs in the last 250 years and you will find that most of them pan out along those lines. I've asked before, but is there an example of a small scale phenomenon, like cold fusion or the light bulb, or electron diffraction etc. that was rejected in principle by mainstream science for 20 years, that was eventually proven correct? You always get a large crowd of skeptical detractors who claim it is a fraud and lunacy. You also get such a crowd when it is fraud. So, you can't use the existence of skeptics shouting fraud as evidence that it's not. To be a persecuted genius, it is not enough to be persecuted. Even when they are well educated and capable of reading the facts and understanding the claims, they *never read anything*. Frank Close, Robert Park and Mary Yugo are modern examples. Park has not chimed in on Rossi, and Maryyugo has not chimed in on cold fusion. There is absolutely no need to know anything about previous cold fusion experiments to pass judgement on the thermodynamic claims of Rossi. kilowatts are kilowatts, and if Rossi claims he can produce kilowatts of
Re: [Vo]:The extent of opposition to breakthroughs is predicted by Szpak's dictum
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Great crowds of people, including many scientists, opposed Edison, the Wrights, People were skeptical of the Wrights, they did not oppose them. And they certainly didn't oppose powered flight. the laser, There were no crowds of people who opposed the laser. A few academics were briefly skeptical, and the department head frowned on the research. One of those briefly skeptical was von Neumann, but he was convinced over a beer. the telegraph, the telephone, Crowds of opposition? Really? Semmelweis's method of reducing disease, the germ theory, This is, I think, the best example you have of a theory actively rejected by much of the mainstream for an extended period. But you have to go back 150 years for it. And it is very much the exception. None of your other examples are at all similar to cold fusion. evolution, religious objections; don't apply to cold fusion the MRI, and just about every other major breakthrough. What about the 2 biggest breakthroughs in physics in the last century (or for all time maybe)? Relativity and quantum mechanics were both accepted almost immediately, even though they were in direct violation of classical theories. They didn't just oppose these things; they were livid with anger at them. Livid with anger about the laser, the telephone, MRI, Edison? Can you provide some quotes? They worked tirelessly to prevent them. Without a shred of proof, they ranted and raved that the discoverer is a fraud. Who ranted and raved that Edison was a fraud? If a large group of people, especially scientists, make a good living researching or selling a rival technology, there will be strong opposition. This is cold fusion's favorite excuse for not making any progress in 20 years, but it's just not true. Most scientists earn university salaries, and they can shift their research with the wind. In fact, if cold fusion were right, there would be a lot to do for people trained in nuclear physics. The number of people directly involved in hot fusion research is pretty small, and they have little or no influence over the rest of scientists. And if they really believed cold fusion had merit, they wouldn't be so naive to think they could suppress it indefinitely. Pons Fleischmann's research budget skyrocketed after they went public. They had their own lab in France, and more funding than either of them had had before, and they still made no progress. And for the few that would temporarily lose as a result of cold fusion's success, the vast majority of people, including scientists would benefit enormously. Why would they be complicit in such a suppression. No, this is nothing more than a cold fusion fantasy. All physicists were making a good living researching classical physics when relativity and quantum mechanics came along. They did not oppose it. They got involved, changed their research, made contributions, and many became famous. No one was invested in anything like the x-ray in 1895, so it sailed through without opposition. A century later, many people were selling x-rays machines, so they pulled out the stops to prevent the MRI. Could you provide a reference to the history of MRI that describes opposition from x-ray researchers. I am not familiar with that. In every example you look at, this is about money and political power. Nothing else. But cold fusion would make everyone *richer*, and solidify many developed countries political power, by making them less dependent on the middle east for oil. Just like the industrial revolution raised the standard of living for everyone. If it's about money and power, cold fusion, if real, would be embraced by western governments. If you think a few eggheads could prevent something like that to preserve research grants, that they can't even use to buy sports cars, you're sadly mistaken. There is one overriding metric (notwithstanding religious influence) that determines whether a technology is quickly accepted or not. Evidence. The better the evidence, the faster the acceptance. Relativity had it. Quantum mechanics had it. X-rays had it. Hand-washing, probably not as strong. Superconductivity has it. N-rays didn't have it. Polywater didn't have it. Homeopathy doesn't have it. Evidence for continental drift was initially weak, and only accepted when it became much stronger. Likewise for black holes. Rossi does not have the evidence. That's why people are still skeptical. If he heated an olympic pool to boiling with a 30 kg ecat disconnected from the mains, no one would care if it violated theory. He's be catapulted to fame overnight. The plasma fusion program is the locus of opposition to cold fusion. But the most famous debunkers were not plasma fusion researchers. Nathan Lewis is a chemist. Steven Koonin was not a plasma fusion researcher, and he probably gave the most dramatically crushing talk, when he called PF
