This makes a lot of sense, but how will the public vote between CF and Joe Newman's machine or any other fringe research in practice? Via some reality television program? (why not) And who/what will guide their choice?
Michel P.S. I came across this excellent paper, it's not really new (2002) but I couldn't find it mentioned in the archive so I thought I would point to it: "'Pathological Science' is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)" HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No.1 (2002), pp. 5-20 http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Congress support cold fusion? I vote no! > 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 >
