On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote:
The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect > theory. > Ethan Siegel's argument in this instance is essentially an argument from authority -- the authorities are right, so the cold fusion people must be wrong. His general approach is actually a good one when dealing with a brash young kid who is just learning about physics: do you really think you know what people who have studied physics for years know to be different? But the usefulness of the approach is pretty limited when you try to apply it to CF. (Although CF people on the whole could definitely benefit from a better knowledge of physics!) Siegel has been lumping cold fusion into the same category as perpetual motion machines for years. Here is an earlier attempt to get people to come to their senses, which used arguments going back to physics rather than an argument from authority: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/ Honestly, I wouldn't worry about opinion pieces like the one that was recently published in Forbes Science. Even nontechnical people will see that he's adopting a paternalistic attitude, which is, essentially, "trust us, we know what we're doing." Eventually he will be embarrassed. Eric
