Steven Krivit wrote (heavily snipped): > Your message also demonstrates that you've taken the initiative > that disingenuous skeptics have not - you have made a serious > effort to learn about this subject.
I've been following things since 1989. > On to your own personal inquiry in this matter. > > What will it take? What sort of demonstration? You're asking me what would convince me personally that cold fusion is real. Well, I've had mood swings both ways. It often depends on what I've just read. I found "Bad Science" to be particularly distressing since it echoed so much of what I had read in the papers years earlier. Also disturbing was a 2004 newspaper article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16.html) talking about how even CF researchers agree that much CF research is awful, one supporter calling the papers "mixed toxic waste". And in my last post to you I mentioned the extremely "iffy" ethical status of the new CF companies and how no big companies are doing research. Well, warning flags are certainly flying high. But the real question is, how does a layman evaluate ANY scientific result? That is the fundamental problem with organized skepticism because I simply don't think layman have the background to evaluate most science or pseudo-science claims; we HAVE to rely on the experts. And here in the West at least, the experts -- or those claiming to quote them -- say cold fusion is bunk. We assume the impartiality of the experts. They don't lie; they're scientists! We believe them because theoretically at least we could get the same training and come to the same conclusions. That's what makes science different from theology. So maybe we somehow hear about "1000 positive refereed CF papers". The experts that we know don't mention them but they still say bunk. The experts also say CF researchers are "incompetent" and "deluded". Sometimes they even say "frauds". I've read the early history; if nothing else F&P have a lot of misbehavior to answer for. Maybe they were deluded. Maybe those who are following them are equally deluded. It could be explained both ways. How am I as a layman supposed to know? Would a Ph.D. help? So well, hey, maybe there IS some sort of systematic error that explains the excess heat results in those "1000 positive refereed CF papers". At least one poster on sci.physics.fusion thinks so. He's a scientist. Some other presumably knowledgeable posters there also say the CF mass spec results are wrong. How much work would I have to do to evaluate that? So "refereed"... Hmmm... How many of the referees were also CF advocates? Well, you can see what's happening. Speculation upon speculation. All because I don't know enough and would have to train for years to overcome that lack. We all know that ain't happening. That's why beating Randi at his game would give me some satisfaction. At least mainstream science would have to shake off its apathy and try again. Maybe they could "explain it away" like they did before. But it would be especially entertaining if they couldn't. And freeing, too. I could finally put my occasional obsession with this subject to bed. > I predict the acceptance of cold fusion will occur as a result of > a confluence of a demonstrable achievement, as well as an increased > awareness and understanding. Acceptance, I predict, will not come > from one without the other. > > Will that demo come from a commercial entity or a government entity? > I cannot predict that at this time. It doesn't look like it's coming from anywhere right now. How many decades are you willing to wait? > Your comment: "This sort of problem will not be solved without the > involvement of the entire worldwide physics community" strikes me as > somewhat peculiar. To me it sounds a little like "the problem of the > horseless carriage will not be solved without the involvement of the > buggy manufacturers." At this point in time, the most important skillset > for making cold fusion work appears to be materials science knowledge, > not physics. Materials science presupposes good knowledge of how materials can be expected to behave. In cold fusion they are not behaving like they're supposed to. We will need new physics and physics is not a field for laymen. The physicists will need time to come to grips with the new phenomena but they're the only ones who can. > Skeptics? Using ridicule? Their time is up. Their tricks of using > logical fallacies are over. The mass media is up on this. The science > media is soon to follow. Steven, I believe you are indulging in wishful thinking. People LOVE ridicule; it's fun! The skeptics will continue to use it successfully until something they can't ignore proves they're wrong. Something like a demonstration that the press has to pay attention to, such as winning Randi's prize. I do have a little hope for one such demonstration sparked by this thread; see the new thread, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg13665.html and particularly Michael Foster's post. > P.S. I'm a former bit-head too. I'm pre-"bit-head". I started work at the tail-end of the punched-card era. Thinking back, I find I miss running my fingers through a box full of chads... Regards, Walter
