Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Suppose there is a website, might even be lenr-canr.org. Every
common question or claim about cold fusion is answered there, in a
presentation that is accessible immediately and that is concise and
focus, as well-written as possible. So, someone comes up with a
Standard Stupid Statement in a blog, very quickly and effeciently
someone familiar with the web site can quote the Stupid Stement
without argument, then point to the URL of the standard answer that
is utterly clear and fully evidenced (possibly on subpages,
citations, etc). And this site, by the way, invites criticism, so
that if it's defective, it can be fixed. The top-level page isn't
publicly editable, that's done by consensus with the approval of
site management. So it doesn't get cluttered with discussions and
arguments that can go nowhere.
We have things like that already. From least to most detailed, we
have: the Q&A section of my book (originally by Mallove and
Rothwell), the Storms review papers, and Beaudette's book.
The most common skeptical argument is Huizenga's point 6 in the
summary section of his book:
"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by
other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must
conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."
In other words, the fact that result is positive is proof that it
must be wrong. The underlying argument is that the theory cannot
cannot be wrong, and therefore the experiment must be mistaken, and
no additional or specific reasons why it is mistaken are called for.
This assertion cannot be debated in any depth. Boiled down to
essentials, a debate goes like this:
Me: That is a violation of the scientific method.
Skeptic: No, it isn't.
Me: Your argument cannot be falsified; you have to show a specific
error in an experiment so that your assertion can be tested.
Skeptic: No, I don't.
There are two other documents listing arguments --
1. My list of skeptical arguments here:
<http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html>http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
This is short but comprehensive. I do not know of any major arguments
not included.
2. In the unpublished paper by Melich and me about the 2004 DoE
review: "Table 2. Summary of common errors made by review panel
members." If I could get Melich to finish this I would upload it.
Anyway, I title this a table of "errors" whereas a skeptic would call
it "valid arguments." Whatever you call it, I found 14 major
skeptical arguments in comments made by DoE panelists that I disagree
with. I described the 14 arguments and then made Table 2 showing who
make what error. Some of the reviewers did not make any of these
errors, and some made only a few minor ones. I cannot upload the
table here because of formatting limitations. The errors are:
1. Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a
violation of the scientific method
2. A result need not be explained theoretically before it can be believed
3. A reviewer's inability to imagine or understand a result is not a
valid reason to reject it
4. Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot disprove it
by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it
5. Undiscovered error hypothesis
6. Chemical storage hypothesis
7. Artifactual low-level heat hypothesis
8. Recombination hypothesis
9. The nuclear hypothesis best fits the facts
10. Data from newly discovered phenomena often seems inconsistent
11. Difficulty with experiments, irreproducibility and erratic
performance are not grounds to disbelieve a result
12. Researchers have made great efforts to find systematic errors and
conventional explanations
13. Underfunded research cannot be expected to produce elaborate and
expensive results
14. Skeptics have published few papers
Huizenga's reason #6 is a combination of error #1 and #5 (with a
little of #4 thrown in).
This paper includes a description of each error, for example, regarding #5:
". . . [T]he claim that there might be an undiscovered error is not
falsifiable, and it applies to every experiment ever performed. There
might be an undiscovered error in experiments confirming Newton's or
Boyle's laws, but these experiments have been done so many times that
likelihood they are wrong is vanishingly small. Furthermore, skeptics
have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have
failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set,
or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo,
forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. . . ."
- Jed
