Walter Faxon wrote:
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".
That comment was uncalled for. All new science is a mixture of truth
and error. There is nothing disturbing about that, anymore than it is
disturbing to see a baby make a mess while learning how to eat.
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.
No we do not. For one thing, there are no real experts in cold fusion
yet. No one knows how it works. Second, in my opinion, you can only a
scientific claims based on your own knowledge and experience. You do
not have sufficient knowledge and experience you simply cannot judge
the matter and you should remain neutral. If you are a reporter or
politician, and your job requires that you reach some sort of
preliminary conclusion, I suggest you read my paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf
Quoting myself:
"In the end, you must depend upon your own judgment. If you cannot
tell a reciprocating engine from a turbine, perhaps you should
refrain from writing about the Titanic. Reporters, historians, and
scientists who know nothing about electrochemistry and calorimetry
should refrain from writing about cold fusion. If a reporter must
write about cold fusion, he should search the Internet for articles
about it. . . . A reporter who does not understand these papers must
do his best with summaries written for the layman, and admit to his
readers that he does not fully grasp the technical issues."
Of course there is nothing wrong with depending upon experts. Doing
so is not the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
However, when the authorities do not agree -- which is certainly the
case with cold fusion -- then relying upon them is a logical fallacy
and your only recourses are to judge the situation yourself, or not
judge it at all. Any attempt to judge something over your head will
probably only result in you making a fool of yourself. You will make
statements not in evidence or logical fallacies. Randi's made what
might constitute a record number of both kinds of errors in a small
number of words. The Taubes book has hundreds of outrageous
assertions that violate basic science and common sense. (See the
paper listed above for a few examples.)
And here in the West at least, the experts -- or those claiming to
quote them -- say cold fusion is bunk.
Actually, the people who say that are not experts or even wannabee
experts. Most of them have no standing in the field and no knowledge
of the research. When you question them you will soon discover they
have read nothing and they know nothing. Their statements are mainly
handwaving. See, for example:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#StormsRothwellCritique
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.
Experts do not mention them because they are unaware that these
papers exist. Therefore, they are not experts, as I said. Anyone who
does not take into account of these positive refereed CF papers is no
expert. Someone who has never read Hamlet, Othello, the unmentionable
Scottish play or the sonnets cannot call himself an expert on Shakespeare.
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.
I think that is slander. I have read the early history too, and I
spent many hours speaking to Fleischmann and Pons. I think their
actions have been honorable, reasonable and aboveboard. Given the
trying circumstances they found themselves in, their behavior has
been exemplary.
Maybe they were deluded. Maybe those who are following them are
equally deluded.
Not a chance. The likelihood of this many professional scientists all
being deluded is so small you can dismiss it. The scientific method
would not work if ~300 professional scientists could report high
Sigma replicated evidence and all be wrong. Actually, if the basic
cognitive abilities and the ability to do one's job could malfunction
in such a large number of people, I do not think our species would
have survived this long.
Large groups of people are often wrong about various things,
especially esoteric subjects or matters of opinion that cannot be
tested directly. But they are never about basic observations,
physically measurable phenomena, and work that they have done for 20,
30 or 50 years. As Bacon put it:
"We have but one simple method of delivering our sentiments: namely,
we must bring men to particulars, and their regular series and order,
and they must for a while renounce their notions and begin to form an
acquaintance with things. [physical objects]
Our method and that of the skeptics agree in some respects at first
setting out: but differ most widely and are completely opposed to
each other in their conclusion. For they roundly assert that nothing
can be known; we, that but a small part of nature can be known by the
present method. Their next step, however, is to destroy the authority
of the senses and understanding, whilst we invent and supply them
with assistance."
It could be explained both ways. How am I as a layman supposed to
know? Would a Ph.D. help?
Common sense and the solid understanding of basic physics and
chemistry is not sufficient for many papers. Certainly you need a
Ph.D. in order to replicate the effect. (Or you need as much
knowledge and experience as a person with a Ph.D. has got.)
So well, hey, maybe there IS some sort of systematic error that
explains the excess heat results in those "1000 positive refereed CF papers".
No such systematic error could exist, even in principle. For one
thing, there are many different systems based on different physical
principles, so you have to postulate dozens of different systematic
errors. For example, you would have to show that mercury
thermometers, thermistors, thermocouples and RDTs have all magically
miss behaved in hundreds of experiments. That is so preposterous, I
think anyone who believes it has no grasp of how instruments and
machinery work, or he has a screw loose somewhere.
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?
Read a book or two about mass spectroscopy, read the papers in
question, and the mass spec unit user guide (which is probably
online) and you will be able to draw a reasonable conclusion.
So "refereed"... Hmmm... How many of the referees were also CF advocates?
Practically none.
Well, you can see what's happening. Speculation upon speculation.
Way too much speculation. I recommend you stick to physics and
chemistry textbooks, and original source scientific papers instead.
Also, I recommend you read Francis Bacon's book "Novum Organum" It
describes the experimental method and shows how it is impossible for
hundreds of researchers to be wrong on the scale you suggest may be
possible. Even after 386 years it remains one of the best treatises
on the scientific method.
That's why beating Randi at his game would give me some satisfaction.
Randy makes the rules in his game: Dealer wins and winner deals.
There is no way you could beat him because he will change the rules
as soon as he sees you may win. You saw how he did that to me.
Instead of talking about proof that cold fusion exists, he suddenly
demanded a "practical working version." He raised the price of
admission by a factor of roughly 100,000. Instead of demanding that
the researchers spend ~$100,000 to persuade him, he now demands the
researchers spend ~$10 billion.
Randi is hopelessly muddled and ignorant. I think there is chance he
or any of his friends will even bother to read the cold fusion
literature. There is not a snowball's chance in hell he will admit he
is wrong -- or even understand how or why he is wrong! It is a waste
of time dealing with such people. The only reason I wrote to Randi
was to draw out the responses he e-mailed to me, so that I could
prove how intellectually dishonest and ignorant he is. The next time
someone mentions Randi in a positive light, I invite you to e-mail
him the exchange of messages. Anyone with half a brain will see that
Randi is a fool and a blowhard.
- Jed
