At 05:27 AM 3/20/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write
authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so
blatantly ignorant about.
What did he say, with an air of authority, that is so objectionable?
Look, Goodstein was one of the few major physics personalities who
supported cold fusion research, and who clearly still does this.
Great idea. Attack your best friends because you see them as too weak
in support.
As Rothwell points out, Goodstein attended a Duncan seminar. I think
it's time that we notice that Duncan remains somewhat skeptical.
Duncan is pointing out somewhat the same as Goodstein, and both of
them have come to a position -- Goodstein was there, what, fifteen
years ago? -- that there is *something* important going on here, and
it should be treated with the methods of science, which include the
heaviest possible skepticism, except not a skepticism that concludes
"false" because "not proven." Rather skepticism that looks for proof,
on either side, and continues to demand it.
Goodstein is, in the end, on the right side.
Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I
myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still
not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous
experiment proving it is.
Somewhat similar to the position of Goodstein, as I see it. Please
read him more carefully, and also read his old article, I think it's
in the reference list on Wikipedia.
There are scientists who know much more
about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in
this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in
the world.
I don't know about Britz, it's a strange case. To me, "decided" is a
really dumb position on cold fusion, except as an operating
hypothesis. We don't know WTF is happening in the lattice. Sure looks
like fusion to me. Strongest evidence is heat/helium, and then comes
the neutron evidence from SPAWAR, I hope to reproduce. Heat/helium is
heavily reproduced and statistically definitive. If this were about
medicine, they'd be patenting and selling the drugs.
Absolute proof is not necessary. Statistical proof should be adequate
to establish operating assumptions, and the statistical proof is
overwhelming already. Goodstein is saying to treat this as ordinary
science, definitely not as fraud, and seriously investigate it. Do
you argue with that? Why? Because he seems to give a personal opinion
that is too mild and because he makes a typographical error? Do you
think he doesn't know that this is about loading deuterium into palladium?
What if, in fact, he's being politically smart? What if he really
believes, more than he says, that it's fusion?
CYA? Sure. Why not? His comments could be more politically effective
than a public declaration of "conversion." Conversion can be and will
be claimed to be a betrayal of senility. The guy lost it in his old
age. Too bad, he was such a good scientist in his day.....
Wake up, guys, you don't know where your bread is buttered. You had a
huge opportunity with the 2004 DoE review, which represented a huge
change from 1989, but you believed what the skeptics said about it.
"See, no change from 1989, says so right at the end." That was
preposterous, there was a huge change from 1989! This was the time to
demand that the recommendations be followed! In 1989, they were a
political sop, not real. In 2004, the need for more research was a
true consensus.
(The statement in the conclusion about "no change" -- was it "changed
little?" -- from 1989 was about the actual text of the
recommendation, not about the general position on cold fusion, which
was not really their charge, as interpreted by the DoE reviewer.
Their charge was to determine if there should be a massive federal
program, and the conclusion was basically, "not yet." And, in fact,
that's not far from my position. But "yet" could be next month.
What's needed is a little more basic research, and it's happening.
Just not as fast as if the recommendations of 2004 had been followed,
not to mention those of 1989.)
