Park now makes a distinction between "real science" and "good science" and places CF research in the former category. I guess this means after 20 years he feels CF research has emerged from the "voodoo science" category.
Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Michel Jullian <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 4, 2009 5:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Park back peddles... > Also, even though he doesn't mention it, he is probably biased by > Dardik's record as a fraud: > > http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/cd901a6816701d94852568c0004e3fb7/ab4673ce572a225885256a4a0047cb3c/$FILE/ATT3EKNH/lc091514.pdf > > Has he been vindicated for the accusations in the above ruling > (conning multiple patients suffering of Multiple Sclerosis into > believing he could cure them in exchange for a few tens of thousand > dollars, basically), anyone knows? > > I wish CBS had picked a CF research lab led by a less controversial > character though. > > Michel > > 2009/5/4 Edmund Storms <[email protected]>: > > I don't think this is back peddling. This is one more effort by > Park to > > appear to be clever and funny at someone else's expense. He has > no opinion > > about the subject of cold fusion. He will say what ever makes > him look > > funny and wise to the ignorant. > > > > Ed > > > > > > On May 3, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > > >> What's New > >> by Bob Park > >> > >> Friday, May 1, 2009 > >> > >> 1. IT'S STILL COLD: BUT DO I STILL THINK IT'S SCIENCE? > >> A month before CBS aired the 60 Minutes program on cold fusion, I > >> commented in WN that "I think it's real science." I still do. That > >> doesn't mean I think it's good science. Science is conditional; > >> everything is open to further examination. Some scientists think > the>> community was too hasty in writing off the claims of cold > fusion in > >> 1989. They believe there may be important truths yet to be > revealed.>> They have searched for those truths for 20 years and > have every right > >> to continue doing so. However, I think the likelihood of success is > >> extremely low and, if asked, I would recommend against the use of > >> public funds for that purpose. Their case is not helped by > embracing>> any scientific sounding nonsense that purports to show > excess energy -- > >> which brings us to Irving Dardik. > >> > >> 2. SUPERWAVE: IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING -- BUT PREDICTS NOTHING. > >> Written as SuperWave it seems to be a registered trademark. What > >> exactly is it? Anything you want it to be. Irving Dardik was in > sports>> medicine, a specialty notoriously prone to alternative > medicine. He > >> treated sports injuries with rhythmic exercise, and invented a > catchy>> name, LifeWaves. This led to an epiphany: you can explain > everything>> by wave interference. The French mathematician > Fourier, figured that > >> out in the 18th century, but Dardik doesn't do math. Even solid > matter>> is waves, he concluded, i.e. SuperWaves. Is this big? > Louis de Broglie > >> won a Nobel Prize for that idea in 1929, and Irving Schrodinger won > >> the Nobel Prize in 1933 and transformed the world by putting wave > >> theory into an equation. But Dardik doesn't do equations. > Instead he > >> hired a flack, Roger Lewin, to gush endlessly about him in a 2005 > >> book, Making Waves, with a Forward by, uh, Michael McKubre. So the > >> CBS “science buzz” consists of one chemist?
