At 05:25 PM 2/9/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And I'm suspecting that the mental problems began much earlier than
obvious symptoms of Alzheimer's, it would explain the otherwise
mysterious obstinacy.
Many young scientists at the peak of their careers agree
wholeheartedly with Huizenga, so this is ruled out.
Cool. However, what "established theory" is violated? Basically,
the established theory does not make detailed predictions in the
condensed matter realm, it's mathematically far too complex . . .
Let's try to understand what Huizenga means here, and what the other
hard-core opponents mean. I gave the example of someone flapping his
arms and flying to the moon. That's not a joke, or hyperbole. That
is how these people view the likelihood of cold fusion. They have
told me on countless occasions that the claim violates so many laws
of physics, on so many levels, it is absolutely, 100% certainly,
impossible. They usually point to what Huizenga said about neutrons as proof.
Regarding the experiments they say what Feshbach told Mallove in
1991: "I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I
know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any
more evidence! I think it's a bunch of junk and I don't want to have
anything further to do with it."
Look, I've done extensive interreligious dialogue and have dealt with
famous paranoid thinkers. (I'm not sure that this is a correct usage
of "paranoid," but by it I mean self-reinforcing thinking. "I have
ten reasons why you are wrong." "Okay, let's look at reason A, it's
flawed because ...." "Well, you might be right about that, but I have
ten reasons why you are wrong." And you can go down the ten reasons,
and with every one the answer will be more or less the same, and
then, at the end, I've actually encountered, "Well, I know because
God told me."
And, you know, when I heard that, I'm really sorry that I didn't ask,
"How do you know that?" Like, what did God's voice sound like? Or was
it a voice you heard? *What was your experience?*
Instead, I dropped the conversation and left. And the man was
assassinated a few years later, for claiming to be a prophet, i.e.,
someone who is directly informed by God. While I have no sympathy at
all for the assassin, and considered this man a friend (he was always
kind to me), there is a reason why that claim is considered really dangerous!
Whether this argument is scientifically valid or not is not the
issue. The point is: they are unalterably certain it is valid, just
as I am certain that a person cannot fly by flapping his arms, and
on top of that, that a person cannot cross outer space to the moon
by this method. As I said, it is impossible on "many levels." It has
never crossed their minds they might be wrong. They have never
bothered to read papers or evaluate them, any more than I might be
persuaded to look at papers claiming human flight by arm flapping.
Shall we notice that the level of abstraction involved in judging
what is possible with condensed matter nuclear reactions is a bit
different than that involved in judging flying to the moon by arm-flapping?
The "I know, so shut up" argument will lose in a public debate.
Therefore these people will avoid public debate, unless they can
control the terms.
If they get caught in a debate, say an on-line one, when it starts to
go badly, they will announce that they don't have time for this crap,
they aren't going to waste any more effort arguing with idiots.
However, until the "idiots" notice the discussion and show up, they
will happily hold forth with many very clearly false assertions, not
about the theory, but about the *evidence.*
"It never was replicated." "With better measurement accuracy, the
effect disappears." "There are no theories that could explain this."
"If this were fusion, there would be dead graduate students."
The last one is actually true but misleading. It isn't the "fusion"
that they know, and that's, er, obvious?
It's *something else,* and, without having a clue, they proclaim
loudly that it must be sloppy work or fraud. And as the evidence
mounts, they keep on proclaiming the same old errors, again and
again, as if repetition made them more cogent.
Huizenga correctly noticed the proper question of a skeptic: the
suggestion that there be a seeking of a correlation between excess
heat and helium, and the suggestion about light-water controls. But
then, actual experimental results, involving this, he discards as
necessarily artifact because they didn't look for gamma rays? So does
every nuclear reaction produce gamma rays?
I used to give talks at schools about Islam, and I remember one
student who defiantly proclaimed that there was no God. "Okay, please
tell me what this God is that does not exist!" He couldn't say a
word. Then I said, "The God you don't believe in, I probably don't
believe in either."
I don't really argue about God with anyone, because, to me, God is
another name for Reality or Truth. Do I imagine that I have a
comprehensive and complete understanding of Reality, such that I can
say, definitively and for all time and all circumstances, what is and
what is not possible?
I rather doubt it! The people who came before us sometimes thought
they could do this, and so often they were wrong. Do we really think
that we know so much more than them, compared to the ocean of
possible knowledge?
I'm not denying that we know things, and I'm not denying that we know
some things quite well, as to what is *normal.* But to extend from
this to every possible circumstance is pure arrogance.
In any case, in direct discussions with a skeptic or a believer, I'd
want to know how the person knows what they claim to know. Suppose
Huizenga has seen a million examples where there were no signs of
nuclear reactions. It's quite possible to set upper bounds on the
frequency of reactions under some conditions. But some conditions are
so rare that such an overall bound would be meaningless. How often is
there highly loaded PdD in nature? How much time did Huizenga spend
with that material?
It's not Huizenga's *conclusion* that was so offensive, it was his
distortion of the *evidence.* If his position were scientifically
solid, what would be the harm in allowing the evidence to fall where it fell?
Actually, I am very conservative myself, and I have great respect
for expert knowledge, so I understand where these people are coming
from. As Fleischmann says, we are painfully conventional people.
There is only one tiny difference between them and me. Suppose I
were to hear rumors that people are taking off from the face of the
earth by flapping their arms, and that some of these people were
last seen exiting the stratosphere, headed for the moon. Naturally I
would dismiss the notion without a second thought.
As would I.
BUT, imagine I kept hearing these rumors, and I heard from
credible witnesses. And photos and radar data was published in
credible scientific journals showing this was actually happening.
I'd start to reconsider. Maybe there is something here that I
overlooked. Happens all the time! Of course, I'm not Huizenga,
perhaps he never made any mistakes. Maybe that's why his brain filled
up with plaque, mistakes shake it up and shake it loose.
I'm only half-joking.
And then, finally, since I am a firm believer in the motto of the
Royal Society "nullius in verba" (take no one's word for it),
suppose I attended conferences and visited sites and actually
observed it happening myself. Obviously, by that time I would be
convinced that people can fly by flapping their arms, and somewhat
convinced they can leave the atmosphere. (Since I could not not
observe that first hand, it would be analogous to the Iwamura paper.)
I'm not sure that I'd believe it still, after all, I can be fooled
just like anyone else! But I'd certainly be far less confident about
my certainty! As I should be. *Something* is going on that I don't
understand. That thought is intolerable to some people, they will go
to great lengths to avoid allowing it.
The difference between Huizenga and me is not lack of skepticism, or
rigor. It is not even the depth of scientific knowledge. Although he
most assuredly knows far more about nuclear physics than I do, when
it comes to arm flapping or calorimetry, I probably know as much of
the scientific and engineering facts that mitigate against the
claims as Huizenga does.
Did. And I'm sure of that. The book is in some ways very useful, and
in other ways pathetic.
The first, small difference is that I will at least consider any
possibility, however outlandish, miraculous or impossible. I will
take a look. Why not? But the important difference is, I will
believe anything -- absolutely anything! -- no matter how
impossible it may seem, so long as it is proved by experiment. That
is assuming I can understand the experiment. I have no difficulty
understanding arm flapping or excess heat beyond chemistry.
Well, arm flapping is pretty simple, we do it all the time. Flying to
the moon with it is, shall we say, fairly rare. In my dreams, I do
not fly by flapping my arms, I just fly by the power of intention. (I
suspect this is common). Excess heat beyond chemistry, of course,
violates no law of physics, in itself. Some proposed mechanisms
might. But "experiment" does not propose a mechanism. It is just a
description of actions, arrangements, and observations. Experiment,
by itself, does not show "excess heat beyond chemistry."
After all, how do we know what the limits of "chemistry" are?
That is the one unshakable principal I hold, and it is the only
important difference of opinion between Huizenga and me. Actually,
the whole debate about cold fusion boils down to this one difference
of opinion.
What is useful, if possible, is to, in discussion, explore the
foundations of belief. It is sometimes possible, doing so, to move
beyond rigidly fixed positions. Or the people involved blow their
fuses. Some people do not want the foundations of their beliefs
explored, some don't mind at all and actually like it. I do know
which kind of person I prefer to spend time with.
I have no problem at all with skepticism, per se, a "show me"
attitude, one which does not gullibly accept every claim. What I have
a problem with is firmly held belief disguised as skepticism; it's
aptly called "pseudo-skepticism," because it isn't real skepticism,
which does not forget to be skeptical of one's own opinions as much
as those of others. Or at least to a fair degree!
