Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Shall we notice that the level of abstraction involved in judging
what is possible with condensed matter nuclear reactions is a bit
different than that involved in judging flying to the moon by arm-flapping?
Not according to Huizenga and other skeptics. They have never cited
that particular example as far as I know, but I expect if you ask one
he will tell you that is roughly the level of impossibility. He will
say something like: "No, the level of abstraction isn't a bit
different. We know how the laws of physics work, and there is no
chance whatever that aneutronic deuterium fusion can exist. That is
as certain as the law of gravity."
I must emphasize that is what these people sincerely believe. They
are not being cynical or faking it. It isn't as if they harbor secret
doubts and they think there is a slight possibility that cold fusion
might be real after all. That is my impression, anyway, but go ahead
and ask a skeptic. You cannot understand Huizenga's book unless you
realize this is what he believes. Do not assume that he thinks levels
of abstraction may be different for high energy physics versus
Newton's law of gravity. They are equally well established in his
mind, and both are final and indisputable.
The "I know, so shut up" argument will lose in a public debate.
Therefore these people will avoid public debate, unless they can
control the terms. . . .
If they get caught in a debate, say an on-line one, when it starts
to go badly, they will announce that they don't have time for this
crap, they aren't going to waste any more effort arguing with idiots.
Actually, Huizenga never evaded debate or said "shut up." He is
polite. On the radio and elsewhere he was willing to reiterate the
points made in his book as often as anyone asks. You might say: "but
he never came up with any fresh arguments!" However, from his point
of view, McKubre or Storms (with whom he debated) never came up with
any fresh rebuttals either. They kept repeating that experiments
overrule theory. Since he never bought that argument, from his point
of view, he won the debate.
That's true of Park and the other well-known skeptics. Ask them! They
are not shy about expressing their views. They remain firmly
convinced that all the experiments are wrong, and -- they tell me --
it makes no difference if there are a dozen replications, 100, or
1,000. If there are 1,000 that only proves that there are at least
1,000 incompetent or fraudulent scientists in the world. Park seems
perfectly willing to believe that, and unsurprised by it.
My rebuttal argument is that the experimental method is fundamentally
sound. I spell out the reasons based on biology and sociology. People
are evolved to be sane, honest and healthy most of the time. Society
would not have survived otherwise. (Of course, some societies don't
survive.) The likelihood of 1,000 randomly selected scientists being
mistaken or fraudulent over 5 years is roughly similar to the
likelihood that 1,000 randomly selected professional airline pilots
will crash in a 5 year period, or 1,000 bankers will abscond with the
money. The actual rate of error or malevolence is far lower. If that
were not so, we would not have research labs, airlines or banks.
I doubt that Park has ever considered this argument. I imagine he
would say the 1,000 scientists who replicated cold fusion are not
randomly selected, but instead they are a self-selecting group of
people prone to incompetence and fraud. That is highly unlikely from
a statistical or sociological point of view. As it happens I know
many of these people's CVs, I know that is factually wrong.
By the way, the actual number of cold fusion scientists is closer
2,000 or 3,000 than 1,000. I cannot easily count them, but there are
4,800 authors in my EndNote database. Huizenga, Park and other
skeptics are listed, but there are surprisingly few published skeptics.
- Jed
