Edmund Storms wrote:
The people who try to sell science like soap always fail.
On the contrary, they are doing quite well. They
have sold opposition to cold fusion with no more
credence than the 1950s soap advertisement --
without a shred of actual scientific content --
and they have succeeded completely.
For that matter, people sell creationism and half
the population buys it. You can argue that this
is unethical or unscientific but it sure is successful public relations.
And do not forget that other scientists are the
ones who buy what the skeptics are selling. Many
scientists believe that cold fusion is not real.
This is because they are as gullible as anyone
and they fall for Madison Avenue techniques. Plus
as Stan Szpak says, they believe anything you pay them to believe.
Hot fusion does not have to sell the reality
of their product. They are only selling the practical application.
That's what I meant. I did not mean to suggest
that plasma fusion does not exist!
We can't counter the myth because the gate
keepers to the media believe the myth.
Nevertheless, occasionally accurate accounts are
published or shown on TV, but with modest effect.
I have not seen anything on television lately.
But anyway, Obama showed that the gates are made
of papier-mâché and the gatekeepers are asleep.
. . . we do agree that such a successful
application is unlikely. This does not make it a
scam. It is supported for three reasons - 1. It
has a large economic and political inertia, 2.
It promises a source of clean energy, and 3. It
provides a way to investigate plasmas that keeps physics busy.
Right. So let's promise a source of clean energy.
We are a lot closer to it than they are. Let us
make more effort to be heard, and let us make
more affirmative statements than scientists are
accustomed to making. If the plasma fusion people do it, why cannot we?
I agree, the myth has nothing to do with
science. The challenge is to overcome the
myth. Science has always been directed by myths
and these myths are always removed by obtaining the required scientific proof.
They are removed by a combination of scientific
proof and public relations acumen, or luck.
Scientific proof alone seldom suffices.
Can you suggest any other method?
Yes. Learn from history.
But let's assume a person had enough money to
put an ad in the NY Times or a similar paper
claiming the reality of CF. Do you think this
would have any effect? No scientists would be convinced.
No one would be convinced. This would be a waste
of money. 21st century methods should be used
instead. This would like trying to ensure Obama's
nomination in 2007 by putting ads in the New York
Times. That is the sort of thing Guilani and Hillary Clinton did, to no avail.
There is fundamentally no difference between
selling a candidate, a brand of soap, or a
scientific truth. Note that the product has to be
good or it will not sell. No amount of PR will
sell soap that does not clean or a lousy political candidate.
And on the speaker's ability to shape the message.
How would you shape the message and where would
you have this message published?
I would shape it with modern, Internet-based
technology and idiom, which we have not done
sufficiently. I would put it everywhere, as I have done.
Until the effect . . . can be made so
reproducible that any competent person can
demonstrate its reality, getting people to listen will be very difficult.
. . . I do not think that cold fusion will ever
become easy to replicate any more than cloning,
open heart surgery, or making an integrated semiconductor will be.
I did not mean the reproducibility to be as
extreme as you assumed. All of these examples
can be reproduced by competent people. That is what I say is required of CF.
I am sure that CF can be reproduced today with
far less effort than cloning or open heart
surgery! I think that present techniques could be
explained in more detail allowing more
replications -- assuming we can find people who
want to try to replicate. We have not tried to
explain, and not tried to look for people.
Yes, in time. We also will overcome the opposition in time.
On the contrary, based on actuarial trends the
opposition is overcoming us. Unless these trends
are reversed, we will die off, and cold fusion
will be forgotten. In a few weeks Mizuno will
retire and there will be only one cold fusion researcher left in Japan.
You are suggesting the time can be shortened by using different methods.
If I am wrong and the time cannot be shortened,
then I expect there is no hope of success. In
that case I have wasted most of my adult life. I
refuse to believe that, and I absolutely refuse
to give up. Churchill has nothing on me; see:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=423
(Read that, folks!)
I'm asking which methods? As you suggest
below, publishing every detail will not work
because such detail is not read by most people
and it will not prove that the effect is real
or how it can be made reproducible.
How do you know it will not work? It has not been
tried. It has worked with other discoveries in
the past. We do not need "most people" to read
this. One or two would suffice. The main purpose
is to enhance verisimilitude, as I said.
We need both increased details and also more vivid details.
You need to suggest a better approach.
I believe I have, based on history, the study of
public relations (which is an honorable
profession), and social science research.
Unfortunately, no one in the field listens to me.
An "explanation" is irrelevant in my opinion.
Half of the explanations for conventional
phenomena are probably wrong, or incomplete.
Nevertheless, they are accepted as being
plausible by science. That is all I suggest is required of CF.
In the past many phenomena were accepted by
science without explanation. Nowadays this is
uncommon but not unheard of. It is a violation of
the scientific method to demand an explanation
before accepting a result. We need to emphasize
this, rather than casting around for an
explanation of coming up with some sort of improbable half-baked theory.
I'm contacted occasionally by people who want to
try to make CF work. What can I tell them?
Tell them to contact me.
Most of my own efforts do not work. I can only
promise to improve the probability of success.
To get this uncertain result, they have to spend
significant money and invest significant time.
Tell them that, as well. It is essential that you
make this known. This is true of most scientific
research and it is only a problem if people have
the mistaken impression that the experiment is
easy, or that it will surely work.
If they are too poor to buy my book, they will
not have enough money to succeed.
Not necessarily. We are talking about an economic
barrier, which is mainly a barrier of perception
rather than actual ability to pay. Even a
billionaire might not be willing to bet $50 that
cold fusion is real in the first round
evaluation. On the other hand, if people see what
appears to be convincing evidence that something
is real, then they will be willing to pay $50
even if that is a lot of money to them. You have
to motivate them, and give them a reason to overcome the economic barrier.
Alternatively, you have to eliminate the economic
barrier, as I have done with LENR-CANR.org. I
believe I am now distributing far more copies of
Beaudette's book than he sold through
bookstores. I have distributed 21,000 copies of
my own book which is probably 100 times more than
all other cold fusion books combined. This is no
reflection on the merit of other books; it simply
reflects the strength of the present economic
barrier that inhibits spending money on
information about cold fusion. This barrier is
caused by widespread skepticism, obviously. It is
not the fault of the authors such as Storms, Krivit or Beaudette.
On the other hand, if I could tell them if they
did X, Y, and Z, they would see a result they
could believe, they would then have a good
reason to start such an effort. I cannot yet do this.
I believe you can. You just have to clearly state
how likely it is that the result will occur, so
that there are no misunderstandings or hard
feelings if it fails. Most experimental
scientists are used to taking chances, and trying
things that do not necessarily pan out.
A few people, such as Brian and Matt, have taken
the time to understand the field and have the
money to explore even though the chance of
success is low. Very few such people
exist. Nevertheless, these are the kind of
people we need to contact. How would you suggest we make such contact?
By searching for them. By soliciting them. Call
it advertising; or reaching out, or outreach (to
reverse the terms and yet still mean the same
thing -- try explaining that to a person learning English).
I would use the same methods Obama used to win
the nomination starting with no resources and
little hope of success. Seek and thou shalt find;
ask, and it shall be giving unto thee (maybe).
That method never works with God because He does
not exist, but it does work with people, more often than you might think.
Let me emphasize again that practically no one in
this field has ever even tried to ask other
people to help or to participate. It might not
work, but since we have not tried, we don't know.
Please note that Brian found out that cold fusion
exists by reading LENR-CANR.org. 3,000 to 6,000
people read it every week. We have never asked
them whether they want to participate.
Frankly, I am somewhat fed up from hearing from
you -- and much more often from cold fusion
researchers -- that nothing can be done and that
we should not even try, and that I do not
understand scientists or how science is done.
Scientists are people, and I know a thing or two
about people, and how to appeal to them, and
convince them. Obama and I share that
characteristic. You researchers should give me
what I say I need, and let me take a shot at it,
instead of insisting that I will fail and it
isn't worth trying. As I said that, such
attitudes are unbecoming of experimentalists.
- Jed
