William Beaty wrote:
It might seem quite bizarre at first. Don't people typically use the Golden Rule, and apply their criticism also to themselves?
They do not, although countless guides to morality say they should. Such as: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Along the same lines, scientists are typically supposed to believe peer-reviewed journals rather than mass media hype and Internet rumors, but in real life they fall for the latter. They are no less gullible than other folks, except perhaps in their own narrow speciality. Most of the people who condemn cold fusion are from other fields, and most have read nothing and understand nothing about the subject.
If you apply stringent critical standards only to those you attack, never to yourself, and you carefully avoid all self-examination, then you'll never discover your own pathology! Very devious.
In Taubes' case it is stupid, not devious. Also, his standards are anything but stringent. He attacks the researchers for hundreds of preposterous made-up reasons, such as his claim on NPR that excess heat is an artifact caused by using power supplies that produce less electricity on Saturday and Sunday but no one notices. (How does that work? Why less electricity? Why wouldn't their instruments catch this? Has no one ever measured excess heat on a weekday?)
Huizenga is much smarter that Taubes and somewhat devious. But let's put him aside and think for a moment about Leon Ledermann or Burton Richter. What are they doing on the back of Taubes' book, praising it to the skies? Did they apply "stringent critical standards" in this case? Of course not! They jumped to a conclusion and never looked back.
There are professionals who make grievous errors and leave a swath of chaos behind them. CEOs who bankrupt companies, lead programmers who mastermind abominations such as Windows Vista, and WWI generals who order thousands of infantry to attack machine guns head on. I know nothing about Ledermann and Richter. It is possible they might be like this, but I doubt it. More likely they are brilliant people who normally follow the rules and examine their own beliefs rigorously. BUT, unfortunately, in this instance -- in the case of cold fusion -- they did not. Why? Because it never occurred to them that they should. They never stopped for a second to consider the possibility that cold fusion might be real. They treated the subject the way I would react to someone who tells me he is a Leprechaun in disguise. I would think he is crazy. I would humor him, and not for one second take him seriously.
I have met many brilliant scientists who have never -- not even for one second -- stopped to consider the possibility that cold fusion is real. They are a lost cause. There is no point to trying to convince them. Yet by and large they are open minded and fair toward other subjects. It is regrettable that a widespread mental block has developed. This is a social phenomenon, not strictly caused by individual bias. It is similar to race prejudice, sexism, and other formerly widespread biases that even enlightened people were prone to have. Such biases change over time but I doubt their overall number or severity has decreased, and I do not think it possible they will be eliminated in some future Utopia.
These people should heed Oliver Cromwell's plea to the Presbyterians of Scotland: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken." Not to admit right off that you are wrong, but to consider the possibility. Think twice.
- Jed
