On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > > Nevertheless, when many people report seeing the same behavior, the > reality of this behavior grows. You take the approach that none of the > claimed behavior has been observed, consisting instead of bad > interpretation of random events, unrecognized error, and wishful thinking. > This opinion is applied to all the trained scientists who have been well > accepted when they did studies in other subjects. > This argument is a favorite among believers, and has been addressed many times in these discussions. Here are 4 parts of a 5 part response I wrote for another forum: *1) Pathological Science* The phenomenon of many scientists subject to bad interpretations of random events, unrecognized errors, and wishful thinking is sufficiently common that it has been given a name: pathological science. It happened to a lesser extent with N-rays and polywater, and to a greater extent (though perhaps at a lesser level) in homeopathy and perpetual motion machines. It isn't as if 100 scientists (or however many) were chosen at random to do cold fusion experiments and they all claimed positive results. The people claiming positive results are the remainder after considerable filtration. In fact in the 2 cases when panels of experts were enlisted to examine the evidence, their judgements were that cold fusion had not been proven. After P&F, cold fusion experiments were done all over the world -- by probably tens of thousands of scientists. A few of the negative results were famously presented, but most researchers simply went back to their previous interests when their experiments showed nothing, and after they had examined the positive claims in more detail, and satisfied themselves that evidence for cold fusion was absent. But calorimetry experiments are famously prone to artifact, and so it's not unlikely that a few might have stumbled on the same systematic errors or artifacts that others were fooled by. Most of the errors were probably discovered and corrected, and *then* the researchers went back to their previous interests. But in a few of the cases where anomalous heat was indicated, the experimenters (in most cases, people with little or no training in nuclear physics) might have fallen prey to cognitive bias and confirmation bias, and once they were hooked on believing the effect was real, could not let it go. This was greatly facilitated by the potential fame and glory that unequivocal evidence for cold fusion would undoubtedly bring. So, they haven't given up, and every so often, they stumble across another artifact, which is suggestive, but never unequivocal, and they play it up for all it's worth, while ignoring all the failures in between. And so it will appear as if the evidence is building. But the absence of one solid result that can be reproduced quantitatively by other labs (even if only sometimes) after so many years and so many attempts suggests weaker evidence of a real effect to skeptics. *2) Diminishing returns* It is a characteristic of artifacts and pathological science that the observed effect becomes less prominent over time as the experiment improves. And it is characteristic of real effects that they become more prominent over time, whether the theory is understood or not. That's certainly true of things like high temperature superconductivity, or (to go back a century or more) discrete atomic spectra, the photoelectric effect, and Compton scattering. But in the case of cold fusion, the claimed energy is, if anything, decreasing over time. In the 90s there were several claims of excess power in the range of tens, hundreds, and even thousands of watts, and several claims of heat after death (infinite COP). But since 2000, most claims have been in the range of a watt or less, particularly in refereed literature. Even within a group, the claims seem to drop off. Dardik claimed 20W in 2004, but has not been able to match that since. The exceptions to 1 W claim limit tend to use spot temperature calorimetry, and are usually accompanied by investment opportunities from people who have a background in fraud, but not in physics. *3) Bigfoot photographs, or many bad results do not a good result make* Like positive cold fusion claims, there are thousands of photographs that are claimed to be of Bigfoot or other monsters, and hundreds of thousands of claimed alien sitings. Admittedly, they are not often published in scientific journals, but I think the phenomenon is the same; the difference is that cold fusion is more obscure or sophisticated and therefore not as easy to dismiss by scientists -- except in the major nuclear physics journals, which do not publish cold fusion results. The idea that many marginal results is somehow stronger evidence than a few marginal results is typical of pathological science, and is expressed frequently by advocates like Rothwell or Krivit. It just doesn't seem likely to advocates that so many scientists could be wrong. But when the results are as weak as cold fusion results, in fact it *is* likely. What is not likely is that so many photographs, from so many angles, with so many different cameras, could *all* be blurry. The only reasonable explanation is that when the pictures are clear, it becomes obvious that the image is something other than a monster. Of course the clear photos don't dissuade the believers; they just mean the monster ducked under water at the right moment, and those photos are not shown. *4) argument from authority* The argument that there are a great many claims of cold fusion by scientists is really an argument from authority, which is fine, except that it ignores most of the authority. People find it hard to believe that so many scientists can be wrong, but the alternative is that a great many more scientists (i.e. mainstream science) are wrong. In fact, isn't the bread and butter of the advocates' argument for cold fusion that a large number of scientists *can* be wrong, and have been wrong in the past? Why should cold fusion scientists be immune? It's true that most scientists are not even aware of research in cold fusion after the early 90s, but everyone was aware of it back in the day, and for recent work, we have valid samples. First, the two DOE panels were nearly unanimous in judging that nuclear effects were not proven. Second, the failure of cold fusion researchers to get published in major journals means that referees are rejecting the work. Similarly, most funding agencies that use peer review do not fund cold fusion research. So, most scientists who look at the work, do not agree that cold fusion is real. Of course, the argument against the mainstream's rejection of cold fusion is that it's a big conspiracy, that they are suppressing cold fusion to preserve the status quo or their grant funding or their peace of mind. Leaving aside the absence of a plausible motivation for this, and the fact that this would almost certainly be impossible if the effect were real, the advocates can't have it both ways. If they are going to distrust the authorities because they are selfish, then why should we trust the cold fusion authorities? They may be selfish too, hoping to secure their own funding, fame, glory or what have you. (In fact, some are suspected of this, but it is not regarded as a field-wide conspiracy.) > Yes, CF is hard to accept and to understand. So what? So is quantum > mechanics and the big bang theory, but these concepts are accepted because > they are presently popular and supported by extensive studies, not all of > which are correct. > No. They are popular because they are supported by copious, extensive, robust, highly reproducible studies. Anyone can do spectroscopy with hydrogen and see that the results are coincident with the Bohr model (or formal QM). Every fucking time. Anyone can observe electron diffraction or the photoelectric effect. The situations are not even close. > Nevertheless, although an active debate exists in the literature, these > subjects are not denied the money required to resolve the debate, as is the > case with CF. > Whatever active debate exists, it is not about the existence or utility of the phenomena or models. The controversy about cold fusion is whether it's real, and most scientists think the chances are vanishingly small. It's completely different. Why do you thin cold fusion is treated differently? Do you think people hate clean and abundant energy? We know from 1989 that that's not the case; the world is hungry for it. CF is simply not taken seriously because the evidence for it sucks. And support is not simply given to every conceivable claim someone makes. Judgement must take account of what has already been learned.
