On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes you think that? They are certainly not seen as overzealous now,
> except by true believers. If it plays out in such a way that there are no
> true believers left, there is no reason to think *anyone* will regard them
> as having been overzealous.
>
I've read Huizenga, Close and Hoffman (and Taubes). I've read little or
nothing by Lewis or Koonin, but I've read many second-hand accounts of
their arguments, on both sides of the debate. I learned a great deal from
the first three authors, and I think they have many insights to bring to
bear on this discussion. I am not of the opinion, like some here, that
they have nothing interesting to say. I especially liked Close and
Hoffman. Huizenga sounds like a broken record, but even his book is useful
for becoming acquainted with the main challenges that cold fusion poses for
physicists.
There were two things that were striking for me when I was reading
Huizenga, Close, and Hoffman, as one who neither had a background in
physics nor a commitment to cold fusion. The first observation was that
they really seemed to have a grasp of the basics of their fields, and I
learned a lot from them. The second was that they seemed to have undue
confidence in their knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking
evidence and explaining it away. As a member of the general public coming
upon cold fusion recently, this impression on my part might be an outlier,
or it might be representative over the long run. I suspect it will turn
out to be representative.
> But I'm not entirely sure that specific criticism is always more
> effective. Many true believers simply don't read detailed arguments. After
> all, if you look at a site like e-catworld, it is evident that most of them
> become believers because of who else believes.
>
Who is your audience? Who are you hoping to convince? If you're seeking
to debunk effectively, who is the audience you are trying to disabuse?
Obviously not those who already agree with you. That leaves "true
believers" (a very counterproductive term, if I can suggest) and those only
now coming onto cold fusion. I have no reason to doubt your reasons for
believing that engaging in details with those already committed to cold
fusion is futile. But if you're going to disabuse those who are left to be
disabused, you have no choice but to engage specific details. It is clear
that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice post
addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details.
This is the kind of post that will help to advance the conversation. Name
calling ("true believer," "incoherent ramblings of a bitter man," etc.)
will only alienate those who are not already firmly committed to some
position, undermining rather than supporting your intentions. Being
disrespectful of the cold fusion people is exactly counterproductive. I
don't see why more physicists don't see this. If you're going to attack
something, attack details, claims and positions, and in a very measured
way, rather than attacking people, in general terms.
In any case, I did not re-appear here for detailed cold fusion discussions,
> because it's very clear in the mandate that this is a believer site, and
> that's fine. I escaped the mass banning a year ago, because I was on
> self-imposed abstinence for exactly that reason.
>
I think there is plenty of room for died-in-the-wool skeptics here. If I
might offer some suggestions, based on observations of previous bannings:
- Be respectful. You may not agree with people, and you may not even
respect their intelligence or their intellectual integrity, but avoid name
calling and condescension.
- Don't be annoying by endlessly repeating yourself. Think of new
things to say when the old points don't seem to be gaining traction.
- Be prepared to get a strong response to some points you try to make
and don't get too frustrated by it.
These things are probably harder to do than write, but I personally like a
diversity of views here.
The trigger though was Storms' post about tunneling.
>
Yes. Tunneling is good.
Eric
