Jed I agree with all you said. You certainly don't have to be at the defensive, justifying all your actions. This is specially so when you have done nothing wrong.
But cold fusion is a controversial field, and sadly with a bad reputation. This comes for a number of reasons, some of which are somewhat valid, and some of which are clearly not. All of them are comprehensible, I think, in the big "history of science" and "history of scientific revolutions" frameworks. I can tell for first hand experiences that the field is very suspicious for a good number of people. They tend to think that all that comes from the scientists working in CF is a deception, published with the sole intention of getting funding money, or as a consequence of self-delusions, bad experimental protocols, etc. etc. The DIA document and similar documents are VERY important in this regard. To help to clear out the cloud of suspicion that's hanging over the field, and to make more and more people interested in the real science and phenomena behind cold fusion. A page like that in lenr-canr.org would serve also as a "slap link" to throw in the face of the skeptics, every time is needed. And neither you nor we would have to be writing and repeating the same old (and sound) arguments time and again, when discussing attribution and source verification in the field, or the reputation and seriousness of the publishers. Best regards, and have a nice day Mauro > Steven V Johnson wrote: > >>Mauro sez: >> >> > This is a good summary. >> > Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It >> > surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about >> the >> > validity of the sources and the information presented. >> >>... >> >>I agree! >> >>Write it up, Jed! > > I do not think I should. I do not like to feed the perception that > cold fusion is disreputable or that we have something to apologize > for. If people want to believe I faked the DIA document that's their > business. As long as I am square with the DIA, I don't care what > anyone else thinks. They were miffed with me on Wednesday morning but > they are friendly people and judging by the tone of our recent > correspondence all is forgiven. From the references to LENR-CANR.org > in the DIA document you can see that they recognize the value of the > site, and they consider it legitimate. They understand the value of > uploading the document there. That's important. I care about how my > reputation stands with intelligence experts in the U.S. government > and with electrochemists. I do not care at all where my reputation > stands with the editors at Wikipedia. On the contrary, I would be > worried if those nitwit conformists show respect. They and other like > them will come around when the New York Times and Scientific American > do -- and not one day before. > > Suppose I were running a website devoted to some other academic topic > such as biology or 19th century Japanese literature. No one would > demand my bona fides or question the provenance of the documents. > There are controversial documents, alleged fakes, and strange claims > in these fields. But readers would judge such matters for themselves > using common sense and the techniques I described. > > For example, in biology there was the suicide of neo-Lamarkian Paul > Kammerer in 1926, caused by accusations of academic fraud. See A. > Koestler, "The Case of the Midwife Toad" (Vintage, 1973). If I were > running a biology site and I posted information about Kammerer, > including documents asserting he was innocent, I would not expect to > be called out, personally attacked, or banned from Wikipedia. . . . > Then again, maybe I would. I suppose if the entire site were devoted > to Kammerer I would expect flak. > > - Jed > >
