Regarding Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's that we have "turned the corner" I
certainly agree that there have no substantive attacks in
peer-reviewed journals and science magazines lately. I haven't noticed any.
Even Sci. Am. has shut up. That may be Steve Krivit's doing. He
apparently had a conversation with the editor -- or an e-mail
exchange. He cautioned her to look at the literature and think twice
before publishing more attacks and ridicule. Perhaps she took his
advice. More power to him.
Then again, maybe they just lost interest. Horgan, the guy who
attacked cold fusion often in the past, left the magazine with the
change in editor.
Shanahan seems to be the last "technical skeptic," such as Frank
Close or John Huizenga. That is, the last person who offers an actual
technical argument as opposed to statements such as: "get back to me
when you can heat my house." Lomax reports that the journals of shut
out Shanahan, the way other anti-cold fusion journals treat cold
fusion researchers. They cut short the debate. I am not happy about
that. I can see why they do not want to give him more space in the
print edition to respond to critics. Print edition space is
expensive. But if they have an on-line publication I think they
should give him unlimited space there, because that costs nothing. It
seems to me they should show that kind respect for any author who
gets through peer-review. Shanahan has done a lot of work on these
papers, and he deserves to be heard.
I admit I have an ulterior motive. I think he makes a poor case for
his hypothesis. His arguments may hurt him more than they help, so I
prefer to let him have his say.
This is getting a little off topic . . . but limitations imposed by
technology are often prolonged after the technology becomes obsolete
and it abandoned. This is sometimes done for political purposes, or
to preserve the power of entrenched interests. Maybe that is what the
journals are doing when they cut off the Shanahan debate.
Unjustified, high costs are maintained by laws or by anti-competitive
mechanisms to protect the profits of established companies.
Scientific journals are a prime example. They make a lot of money
publishing results on paper; results obtained for the most part
using government research grants. Those results should be made
available free on the Internet to every taxpayer. In Japan, the
election laws are excessively restrictive, allowing only 1950s style
street campaigning. They do not even allow on-line campaigning, I
think I read the other day. This is an example of imposing the limits
of the old technology on the new for political reasons. Street
campaigning is expensive, inefficient, and ineffective. It gives the
advantage to old or elderly politicians who are have lost of money
and who think the Internet is a series of tubes.
(Then again, perhaps the journals cut off Shanahan because they want
to edit his response, and that costs them money. The New York Times
recently decided to review on-line responses to their articles and
eliminate the lunatic fringe. Along with that, they had to limit the
number of responses and allow only about a day to respond, because it
costs them review responses.)
- Jed
- [Vo]:Maybe we have turned the corner w... Jed Rothwell
-
