Dear Jed, This was a bit weak, I must say you did much better in your previous empathy exercise!
I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?), only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero, can we go back to the "if" game? Imagine you're writing a SF book, which you're usually quite good at. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) > Michel Jullian wrote: > >>Now try another impersonation. Imagine yourself in the place of a >>hypothetical CF experimenter who realizes years later that his past >>overunity claims were erroneous for some unobvious reason, but still >>believes (rightly so maybe) that there must be a way to make CF >>work. Would you endanger the whole field -and therefore the world- >>by admitting your error, or would you keep quiet? > > I would say the likelihood of this is roughly equal to the likelihood > that scientists will discover that copper and gold are the same > element, or that the world is only 6000 years old. > > The over unity claims are not based on a researchers' opinions. They > are based on replicated, peer-reviewed experimental evidence, > fundamental laws of physics, and instruments and techniques that have > been used in millions of experiments and industrial processes since > the mid-19th century, such as calorimetry, autoradiographs and other > x-ray detection, spectroscopy, tritium detection techniques and so > on. These techniques have been used to confirm the results by > hundreds of scientists in thousands of runs. If they could all be > wrong for some reason, the experimental method itself does not work, > and science would not exist. > > If a cold fusion researcher were for some reason to question his own > high-Sigma result, he would be wrong. To take a concrete example, > researchers at Caltech were convinced that they did not observe > excess heat. They thought the calibration constant in their > isoperibolic calorimeter was changing instead. However, I am sure > they were wrong about that, and they did actually observe excess > heat. Their opinions to the contrary count for nothing. Just because > the people at Caltech cannot bring themselves to believe indisputable > experimental proof of cold fusion, that does not give them leave to > rewrite the laws of thermodynamics or to claim that an instrument > developed by J. P. Joule in the 1840s does not work! > > Science is not based on opinions. It is based on what nature reveals, > in replicated observations and instrument readings. The bedrock basis > of the scientific method is that in the final analysis, all questions > must be settled by experiment, and experiment alone. Experiment > always trumps theory. When instruments show that a phenomenon occurs > many times, in many different labs, with different instrument types, > at a high signal-to-noise ratio, the issue is settled forever. It is > beyond any rational doubt or argument. No better proof can exist in > the physical universe. A scientist cannot "choose" not to believe the > instrument readings, any more than a pilot can choose to pretend he > is on the ground when the airplane is actually flying at 1,000 meters > altitude. > > >>Let's push it further. Imagine you lack, unknowingly, the particular >>technical skill (some exotic subbranch of EE or plasma physics or >>statistics, whatever) which you would need to realize your error. > > Cold fusion results are not based on exotic skills or subbranches. > They are based on 19th century science that only a lunatic or > creationist would dispute. The excess heat and tritium results are > sometimes subtle, but in other cases they are tremendous and far > beyond any possible instrument error. Sigma 100 excess heat and > tritium at a million times background are not debatable, and there is > no chance they are caused by error or contamination. > > I said that "people who do not believe what the instruments reveal > are not scientists." Everyone knows that some working scientists do > not believe cold fusion results, but they have temporarily stopped > acting as scientists, just as a policeman who goes on a rampage and > beats innocent people is not acting as a policeman. Skeptical > scientists who reject cold fusion fall in two categories: > > 1. Those who have not seen the evidence, or who refuse to look at it. > > 2. Those who look at the evidence, agree that it is indisputable and > then dismiss it anyway, such as the DoE reviewer who looked at > Iwamura and wrote: > "The paper by Iwamura et al. presented at ICCF10 (Ref. 47 in DOE31) > does an exhaustive job of using a variety of modern analytical > chemistry methods to identify elements produced on the surface of > coated Pd cold-fusion foils. . . . > The analytical results, from a variety of techniques, such as mass > spectroscopy and electron spectroscopy, are very nice. It seems > difficult at first glance to dispute the results. . . . > From a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions are not to be > believed . . ." > > http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#StormsRothwellCritique > > This person is not acting as a scientist, and the last sentence has > no meaning. It is not a "nuclear physics perspective"; it is an > imaginary prospective, or one based on a kind of faith, a cult, or > superstition. If you cannot "dispute" replicated results -- meaning > you cannot find a technical error -- then you must believe them. > Without this rule, no technical argument can be settled, and no > scientific progress can occur. > > - Jed >
