Kirvit is an investigative journalist,rather than just reporting the facts.
Harry ----- Original Message ---- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 11:58:07 AM > Subject: [Vo]:Another pick-up of Krivit's screed > > > href="http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26739/Krivit_says_cold_fusion_is_not_fusion_but_LENR.html"; > > target=_blank > >http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26739/Krivit_says_cold_fusion_is_not_fusion_but_LENR.html As > with a few of the citations, this one does get that Krivit is still promoting > LENR. I find it fascinating that the only skeptical questions at the > press conference were from Krivit; I was amazed at how many questions they > allowed him to ask, but I suppose if nobody else was turned away, it could > have > been okay. They were not intelligible to a general audience, they seemed to > be > attempts to force these scientists to answer heavily loaded questions, useful > only to Krivit and his agenda. It seems he's managed to alienate most of the > researchers in the field. It is not the job of a reporter to "challenge > dogma." It is the job of a reporter to find and present facts, and of a > science > reporter to find and present scientific fact. Definitely, if there are > inconvenient questions, they should be asked. But scientists are human; they > make mistakes, and if you start trying to show that the mistakes were > intentionally deceptive, or that the researcher is being intellectually > dishonest and covering it up, or that the scientist is otherwise engaged in > reprehensible conduct, you become a hostile prosecutor, not a reporter, > mind-reading and judging, and they will stop answering your > questions. There is a job to be done, to educate the public, and > skeptical scientists. What is known about cold fusion? What is the state of > the > research, what avenues are being explored? What criticism is there of the > body > of work? What is the *actual scientific consensus*? "Scientific > consensus" isn't a survey taken of all scientists, it is a social phenomenon, > and we must assume that it appears among those familiar with the field. > Scientists get their news from the media like everyone else, except in a > field > where they closely follow the journals and other current activity. A particle > physicist is not an expert on what chemists are finding, and vice-versa. I'd > like to leave the final say on what cold fusion involves to the theoretical > physicists, those who take on the tough math of quantum field theory, > necessary > in condensed matter, and that will take, I predict, a lot of time. But > the actual experimental work is mostly a chemistry experiment of one kind or > another. Even the "nuclear" tools used are found, most commonly, with > non-nuclear-physics work: SSNTDs, widely used for dosimetry, radiation > detectors > of other kinds, used for indentifying radioisotopes. Condensed matter > nuclear science is a new field, a synthesis or crossover field. Who are the > experts? There is little or no formal answer, but we could look to those who > have published work; the peer-review process indicates a finding of some > level > of expertise. There are no recent published critiques of the field from > "outside." Kowalski may have been off in his critique of the SPAWAR work, or > not, but he's not a cold fusion skeptic -- and he was at least partially > right. If we look at recent published work, which would almost always be > an indication of current scientific consensus, it's entirely positive on the > LENR issue. There are condensed matter states which are producing nuclear > reactions, unexpected from prior theory. The work has largely turned from > trying > to prove this to investigating details. How can we communicate this? What > we are dealing with is a common human phenomenon, that people assume that > what > they believed twenty years ago, which was at least somewhat rational then, is > still just as rational. It's frustrating to see the same canards repeated > over > and over, such as the one that Fleischmann's work could not be replicated. It > was true for maybe a few months. Then not true any longer. The arguments > against cold fusion began as normal skepticism and even cogent criticism. > Fleischmann really did fall into a big error with that gamma spectrum, > claiming > neutron radiation. But ... where it began is not where it went. It went into > standing assumptions that any report must be an error. That's politics, not > science. __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
