Michel Jullian wrote:
> evolution, but I would not want to see government money spent on
> creationism. (I suspect these polls exaggerate the support for
creationism.)
You're right Jed, the public believes in many silly things, so why
the hell do you want to rely on them to decide which research should
be publicly funded?
Like you said, they would grant more public funding to Joseph Newman
(just like they presently grant him private funding) than to CF
research. How could they decide that one is better than the other
BTW, surely it looks pretty much the same to them. It's only a
question of marketing I imagine, maybe CF should play heavily on
religious beliefs like creationists and Newman do?
I never thought of that approach! The First Church of Excess Heat. I
like it! It is tax deductible. It will be fun establishing the holy
rituals. Electrochemistry is already full of obscure procedures that
no one understands but everyone does because they always have, so it
is a ready-made religion. It was founded by Faraday who was
(seriously) as saintly a person as any scientist who ever lived.
Getting back to this:
the public believes in many silly things, so why the hell do you
want to rely on them to decide which research should be publicly funded?
That is a important question, about which I have thought a great
deal. Broadly speaking, the direction of scientific and technological
government R&D is decided by four parties:
1. Scientists, who believe many silly things. Most of them are
convinced that cold fusion does not exist, for reasons that make no sense.
2. The administration and the Congress. They believe in many silly
things such as Star Wars and ethanol. They have spent hundreds of
billions of dollars on such things. They solicit backing from
scientists to justify these expenditures, but this is easy to do
because you can always find an expert for hire who will testify that
Star Wars is a great idea. As Stan Szpak puts it: "scientists believe
whatever you pay them to believe."
3. Corporations. They have played no role in cold fusion, either
blocking it or supporting it. All opposition has come from scientists.
4. The public. Regarding technical issues, the public is less
well-educated than scientists, and somewhat less well educated than
the average congressman. But people on average are not fools, and
their judgment can be trusted. As I said in chapter 18, if that were
not true our species would have gone extinct. In any case, there are
two excellent reasons why we must let the public have a say: 1. The
public pays for this circus! 2. Ultimately, the public is in charge
of everything, and responsible for everything. Whether we want to or
not, we -- the public -- must decide all issues by voting, or by
staying home and not voting. When you stay home, you give the special
interests a free hand to do whatever they please, but the outcome is
still your fault. As Hugh E. C. Beaver said regarding pollution
control: "on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the
issue." (See the Introduction to my book.)
In short, we must let the public "decide which research should be
publicly funded." Ultimately, no one else has the power to decide.
The process should be done with cooperation by all four parties.
Scientists are in the best position to judge which proposals have
technical merit, so they should provide honest advice and leadership.
In the case of cold fusion they have failed to do this.
There have been many technical debates in recent years in which the
public has spoken with a louder voice than ever before, thanks to the
mass media and the Internet. In most cases, I think the public has
made wise choices, and pushed through good programs. Some examples:
Funding for AIDS research increased rapidly in the 1980s because of
organizations such as Act Up! The public was far ahead of the
doctors, researchers and the administration on this issue. Ordinary
people -- the public at large -- demonstrated enlightened acceptance
of AIDS patients at a time when Pres. Reagan would not say two words
about the disease, and when no congressman would go near an AIDS
patient. The politicians scrambled to catch up, and it soon became
fashionable to have an AIDS victim address political conventions --
even Republican conventions!
Industry and special interests are fiercely opposed to environmental
clean up, alternative energy, global warming research and so on. If
you doubt that, read the propaganda spewed out by the Greening Earth
Society. Industry has great influence in Washington because it pays
millions of dollars to members of Congress, and because the present
administration is not merely owned by the oil interests, it *is* the
oil interests! Yet despite this Niagara of power and money, industry
still sometimes loses. Environmentalism and global warming research
make progress thanks to public support. It does not matter how much
money special interests spend to buy elections and corrupt elected
officials. They cannot fool all of the voters, all of the time.
(As it happens, the amount of money spent buying Congress is still
less than it was in the 19th century, and nowadays most of the money
goes to pay for advertising, whereas back then it went straight into
the bank accounts of the congressmen themselves.)
I support most of the research that was funded with grassroots
support. I think it may be possible to fund cold fusion the same way,
and I think this is the best way to go about it. I would not want to
see secret support in "earmarked" appropriations, or money that is
transferred from other programs without telling the Congress. Many
cold fusion researchers have been trying to use such "stealth"
backdoor approaches, and that is what I oppose in the Subject Heading
for this thread.
I want to see cold fusion debated in committee, and research funding
for it openly appropriated. I would like to see it pushed through
against the rabid opposition of the DoE, the plasma fusion
researchers, the APS, and the others. First, because we deserve to
win an open, fair debate. We are right and they are wrong. Second,
because we should teach these people a lesson about who is in charge
of this country. All government workers, including elected and
appointed officials and the researchers at the DOE, are *public
servants*. They darn well should be reminded of that.
Today's DoE officials and the bureaucrats in charge of the Katrina
rescue effort are among the worst in US history. Not only are they
grossly incompetent, but they are arrogant, they lord over the
public, they ignore public needs, and they treat members of the press
and public like children. This goes against our traditions. No
previous Democratic or Republican administration would have allowed
it. My parents and their friends worked for the federal government
for 40 years in technical jobs (at the Bureau of standards -- now
called NIST, and the Census Bureau.) They were part of the New Deal
and World War II generation. They would NEVER have acted like this!
They would be outraged to see it. It is a shame that Americans have
come to accept this kind of thing, and that so many feel they are
powerless to affect their own government. The special interests want
us to feel powerless, and to stay home from elections. They peddle
negativity, fear and hopelessness during political campaigns, and in
the mass media they sell violence and crass, anti-social consumerism
because that serves their interests. When you say: "it's hopeless;
the big money will always win, why bother to vote," you make a
self-fulfilling prophecy, and you do just what big money wants you to do.
- Jed
