Re: [Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
On 2012-08-26 19:23, Jed Rothwell wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html I cannot get the full article, because I am not a subscriber. The full article is now publicly accessible. It's quite short. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html I cannot get the full article, because I am not a subscriber. Mike is wrong about the Planck quote. That's not what Max meant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
I have used that quote myself many times, always in the sense that author Cartwright says is incorrect. So I sent him a polite email asking why he believed that the more conventional interpretation is the wrong one. I will email the list if I get a response. Jeff On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html I cannot get the full article, because I am not a subscriber. Mike is wrong about the Planck quote. That's not what Max meant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I have used that quote myself many times, always in the sense that author Cartwright says is incorrect. I think the author is McKubre. Anyway, here is a more complete version of the quote, from the intro to my book: . . . as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Planck, M., A Scientific Autobiography, 1948: Philosophical Library, p. 33 (translated by E. Gaynor) So I sent him a polite email asking why he believed that the more conventional interpretation is the wrong one. You might want to send him the full quote. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
I see your point. Glad I was polite. I will follow up with him. Jeff On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I have used that quote myself many times, always in the sense that author Cartwright says is incorrect. I think the author is McKubre. Anyway, here is a more complete version of the quote, from the intro to my book: . . . as Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs “funeral by funeral.” He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Planck, M., A Scientific Autobiography, 1948: Philosophical Library, p. 33 (translated by E. Gaynor) So I sent him a polite email asking why he believed that the more conventional interpretation is the wrong one. You might want to send him the full quote. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre in New Scientist
At 12:23 PM 8/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797.100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death.html I cannot get the full article, because I am not a subscriber. Mike is wrong about the Planck quote. That's not what Max meant. Well, I can't see the full article either. But from what I see, I don't think McKubre is wrong. I think that one might misunderstand what he's saying. In any case, cold fusion stopped depending on Martin years ago. There isn't any doubt now that cold fusion will survive. The deaths that might advance cold fusion are of those who so strongly and pseudoskeptically opposed real science, i.e., the explanation, through controlled experiment (or other similar analysis where controlled experiment is not possible), of observed phenomena. But, really, the only death that is helpful is the disappearance of that pseudoskeptical view from the journals. The media will eventually follow. At some point, a major organization will be sufficiently embarrassed by publishing, once again, Nobody was able to reproduce it. That may nor may not take a real commercial device. I have been suggesting that we not depend on proof-by-overwhelm, since cold fusion was, from the beginning, an unreliable phenomenon, as many real phenomena are, outside the artificially simplified realm of plasma physics. It might never be reliable. Yet, until real science is known and accepted, or that cold fusion samovar or home hot water heater is available, we can't really be sure either way. Cold fusion engineering will get a lot easier when the phenomenon is understood. It isn't yet. *All* the theories are, so far, speculative. Plausible at best. Not shown to be accurate for prediction.
