Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In this book, Goodstein peddles the same nonsense he did in this
paper, claiming that "nothing has changed":
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GoodsteinDwhateverha.pdf
Jed, you are misquoting him, if you are referring to the paper. From
the paper introductory note:
This book was published in 2010! The statement that nothing has
changed is nonsense.
But rather than that statement, I guess I intended to cite some of
this drivel about Scaramuzzi, and Goodstein's sickening false modesty:
Recently I told this story in the philosophy course on scientific
ethics that I teach at Caltch . . . [wouldn't you know it! - JR] When
I finished may tale, the first question I was asked was, "Do you
believe in cold fusion?" The answer is no. Certainly I believe quite
firmly in the theoretical arguments that say cold fusion is
impossible. On the other hand, however, I believe equally firmly in
the integrity and competence of Franco Scaramuzzi and his coworkers . . ."
I would like to ask Goodstein whether he believes in the laws of
thermodymanics, and whether he thinks calorimeters and tritium
detection work, because if he does, the scientific method compels him
to believe that cold fusion is real. You can't choose to ignore
widely replicated, high-sigma data. And if he cannot judge the
calorimetry, who the hell does he think he is expressing any doubts
about it? If he thinks he can judge theory well enough to assert with
confidence that the theoretical "say cold fusion is impossible" then
surely he understands 18th and 19th century calorimetry.
In his Accountability in Research paper, which I find appalling, he
has the exact same sentence on p. 13.
- Jed
