Yes, that is yet another eclectic-sounding title, but bear with me.
A skeptical corresponded of mine wrote to me suggesting that I delete
or at least write cautions about all papers from Energetics
Technologies because Dardik, the head researcher there, had his
medical license revoked. He cited this article, which is true as far as I know:
Weinberger, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54964-2004Nov16
"Reputation and replication is *extremely* important before we start
taking extraordinary claims seriously. Certainly someone like
Hagelstein has far more credibility than Energetics Technologies
(which you must have known about - there were 6 paragraphs in the
Washington Post, for crying out loud) or a wanker like Fleischmann."
He called Fleischmann a "wanker" because Fleischmann "published
claims of gamma rays without a corresponding Compton edge, something
you learn in freshman physics." He claims this is incompetence or fraud.
My response brought together some ideas about reputation that I have
been meaning to write down for some time:
". . . Ah, I see that you reference the Washington Post article,
Weinberger 2004 . . . about Dardik. Regarding that subject, I agree
with the comments by McKubre, quoted in this article. In any case,
the results have been independently checked and replicated, so even
if Dardik turned out to be the world's worst con man and a serial
killer to boot, this particular claim is correct, and his background
and reputation are perfectly irrelevant. Reputation should only be
considered in the initial stages before independent replication, when
no objective scientific method of evaluation is available. After
replication it wouldn't matter if a claim was originated by the
Birdman of Alcatraz or Heinrich Himmler. Replication proves it is
true and NOTHING can ever prove it is not true. Replication at high
s/n ratio is the one and only standard of truth in experimental science. . . ."
[Later]
". . . Regarding your mistake of citing the reputation of a
researcher, instead of discussing the content of the research itself,
I mentioned the Birdman of Alcatraz, Robert Stroud. That is a highly
relevant example. Stroud was a crazed murderer and psychopath who
attacked and tried to kill several prison guards and others. He had
to be held in solitary for years. He caused constant dissension and
chaos. He was personally loathsome and filthy. He was also a leading
authority on bird disease, and he wrote a textbook which is still in
print, and highly recommended:
"Stroud's Digest on the Diseases of Birds"
The fact that he was a lunatic and completely untrustworthy about
everything other than birds has no bearing on the scientific validity
of his claims. Once his methods were confirmed by others, they were
valid and all considerations about the man himself became irrelevant.
Any discussion of his criminal record or personality or personal
reputation becomes an ad hominem logical fallacy, once he passes the
replication stage. (Reputation is, as I said, a weak standard that
might be applied at first before replications can be made.)
The same is true of Fleischmann. Even if he were a "wanker" as you
claim, and even if you could prove beyond doubt that some of his
claims were "fraud . . . due to the lack of a Compton edge" that
would have no bearing on his other claims of excess heat beyond the
limits of chemistry. These other claims have now been replicated.
That makes them right . . ."
Some skeptics difficulty understanding the concept of separating the
man from his claims. It is even harder for them to grasp the notion
that a person might be right about one thing and wrong about another.
In other words, they cannot separate in their minds one set of claims
from another set of claims made by the same person. They think you
must accept all or nothing, and that you must judge the man himself,
including his reputation, popularity, and even the quality of his
English and punctuation when evaluating a claim.
You can see two other symptoms of this confusion:
The skeptics do not realize that they themselves are less capable in
some areas than others; that is, right about some things, and wrong
about others. A skeptic assumes that he must be right about
everything -- even subjects he has read nothing about. (See the
Robert Park quotation in the WaPost article above.)
The Wikipedia article about Robert Stroud does not mention the fact
that he was an acknowledged expert on birds. It does not mention that
he wrote two textbooks that are still in print, decades after his
death. (That is the best indication that a person really is a leading
expert.) It discusses only his lurid life and personality. Apparently
this article was also written by skeptics.
Perhaps I misuse the term "skeptic" here, but I cannot think of what
else to call them. You know who I mean!
- Jed
