On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> By the way, that was for "charge 2" Most went along #3. Charges are: > > "(2) To determine whether the evidence is sufficiently conclusive to > demonstrate that such nuclear reactions occur. (3) To determine whether > there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if > so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued . . ." > No, your interpretation or their reviews could at best be given to the question of compelling evidence for excess heat. As I argued already, only one agreed explicitly that the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive. > In other words, most of the ones who do not think cold fusion is nuclear > still voted to fund it. Unfortunately the DoE ignored their recommendation. > This is a believer's spin. They voted unanimously against a special funding program for cold fusion. Even the one member who wrote that evidence for LENR was conclusive voted against special funding; that places his judgement in question. What they agreed to was that "funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question ..." . That's nothing more than a restatement of the mandate of funding agencies. If cold fusion projects were not funded, that may indicate that no well-designed proposals were forthcoming, not that the DoE ignored the recommendation. The report in fact criticized the poor design of the proposals in the submission to the panel. > Reviewer 6 > > Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. > Much, but not all, and it is one of the longer, more detailed reviews, and includes an evaluation of the experimental data as well, and this comment: "I find nothing in the articles that I've read that convinces me that the new anomalies reported are not experimental artifacts. " That's a comment about the experiments. > Reviewer 15 > > Claim 15.1. "The August 2004 Popular Mechanics gives an overview of the > present DOE review and the cover states that one can build an H bomb in the > basement. Also, the article claims that this is a cheap way to make > tritium. Clearly this article sets the tone for this field of research, one > of paranoia with the added impetus that someone will get there first. It is > this aspect of the field that the DOE must somehow deal with." > > This remark is deplorable, and Popular Mechanics is not a scientific > journal. > Reviewer 15 wrote more than 3000 words justifying his dismissal of CF. The comment about Popular Mechanics in the first paragraph was made to indicate the tone of the field, not to justify its dismissal. > Reviewer 16 > > Much of this review is devoted to refuting existing cold fusion theory. > Much, but not all, and it is also one of the longer, more detailed reviews. The review includes the following judgement on the *experimental evidence*. "My opinion is that none of the experimental evidence directly presented to us is conclusive that nuclear reactions are occurring in these environments...." And it is reasonable that the theory should be criticized because some theory was given in the submission to the panel. See Appendix A, *Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot > disprove it by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it* and > *Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a violation of > the scientific method* > But they did not judge the claims to be proven. No one disagrees that experimental results should be accepted, even in opposition to theory, but at the same time, theory should not be simply ignored. Theory is based on previous experiments, and if it is ignored, then we are doomed to re-invent the wheel. Part of "standing on the shoulder's of giants" means using previous theories to help guide your research and interpretation. I liked the quote from Reviewer 6 from Baym: "We are searching for new experimental phenomena in an area in which theory must be supported by consistent, systematic data. Any search for 'anomalous phenomena' is, in its early stages an experimentally, not theoretically driven field. It is necessary to stay as close as possible to conventional physics for as long as one can hold out, and only when driven up the wall should theorists invoke new physics. " It's another way to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". > The "Ns" here are are not good at the scientific method. They make 68 > elementary logical and methodological errors like the ones underlined > above. > And yet they are all accomplished scientists, who have made real contributions to science. It is their judgement that the field of cold fusion has no merit. I see no reason to consider the judgement of a non-scientist above theirs. You say that scientists who have studied the field are convinced. Yet here a panel of scientists studied it, and most are not convinced. So then you call them stupid. It's funny that in the last 22 years, only stupid scientists have made scientific progress. All the brilliant cold fusion scientists are spinning their wheels.
