Peter and Alain-- I agree that Kuhn would have a field day. However, I do not think he would agree with Rossi apparent theory that commercializing a new technology will lead to better research and behavior of scientists. We will see.
Bob Cook From: Peter Gluck Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 1:26 AM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Essay: The cold fusion horizon Mon cher Alain, Wouldn't you have the kindness to make an EGO OUT guest editorial why not for NOEL, from these ideas a bit developed/ Peter On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: Clearly psychology of groups, epistemology, sociology, ethnology of science, will consider Cold Fusion fiasco as a key event in history, like the story of germs, og geocentrisms, of Malthusianism, of creationism, and of some current stories (maybe correlated). If you (re-)read the book "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette, you will clearly see that logic, epistemology, psychology, are key competence to unlock the truth there. The importance of Baltimore, the reputation trap, the anti-Popperian love of theory, the tribe battles, the hierarchy in sciences (Nuclear Physics>Theretical Physics> Material physics>chemistry>electrchemistry>biochemistry>biology, low compexity->> high complexity), are phenomenon to consider in a human science perspective. I always cite Roland Benabou because his theory of Groupthink explains the "trap" in the "reputation trap", and because it explains the increase of violence when evidence grows against the consensus. The notion of Black Swan is interesting but hid the concept of "Pink Flamingo" more appropriate to Cold Fusion... when something is seen since long (not a black swan) but not considered (not white swan) because of huge cognitive opposition and associate prejudices. Then I remember the work of Kuhn which explained that it happens all the time and that history is rewritten by the losers who say the mainstream science did the job perfectly, despite the annoyance of few irresponsible maverick. So it is hopeless... 2015-12-22 21:12 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker <[email protected]>: On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion I like the essay by Huw Price a lot. He has a great attitude. Philosophers of science and sociologists are in a good position to light a fire under intransigent cliques in the physical sciences. Someone like Kuhn would have a field day with what's going on right now. I think the reference to Lundin's and Lidgren's paper was unfortunate and could become a distraction for Price later on in making his general point. Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
