Well, we can see the influence of the pathological skeptics in the
APS. They still insist that the phenomenon is not worthy of having
the APS show any endorsement, no matter how indirect. The fact that
the APS has secessions about CF at their conferences, that a very
large data collection is available in peer reviewed literature
supporting the reality, and that a respected scientist changed his
mind after reviewing the data - all of this and more have no value or
importance to these people. Robert Park, I think, correctly
summarized the current attitude. I think we have a good diagnostic of
the present condition of the intellectual climate operating in the
physics community. As a group, they are unimaginative and set in
their ways. In the case of Garwin, a major role model in the
profession, we see a man completely lacking intellectual integrity. I
would hope that members of he APS who do not have these
characteristics would show the leaders in the field that they do not
appreciate such role models and the attitudes the APS now endorses.
Ed
On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Krivit <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:43 pm
Subject: [Vo]:"60 Minutes" versus the American Physical Society
> New Energy Times has the story:
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
>
From Steve's blog an APS spokesperson said:
"APS does not, as an organization, endorse particular experiments or
their results. That can only be done through publication in peer-
reviewed journals, and by independent replication by other
researchers. The APS does not endorse the cold fusion experiments
featured in the April 19 “60 Minutes” news program. Any suggestion
by the CBS journalists to the contrary is misleading and false."
By this logic APS does not "endorse" anything it publishes in its
own journals.
Harry
