On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> > Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and >> > revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; >> they >> > crave them. > > > This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate > disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is, > or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and > one thing only: > > FUNDING. Money. Status. Power. > Maybe the scientists you know, but certainly not the vast majority. A career in science is not particularly lucrative in most cases. Incomes are typical of most professions, and probably lower on average than in medicine or law or finance. Considering that most scientists don't begin to earn a real salary (beyond post-doctoral stipends) until they are pushing 30, their lifetime earnings are often not much better than teachers or nurses or engineers or computer scientists. And they well understand the magic of the exponential function, and the value of money earned in the third decade. Academic scientists generally earn salaries that are fairly independent of the success of their research, at least to first order. That is to say, a minority generate income from inventions or patents or licenses and so on, though some clearly do. But even if it were true that they acted purely out of greed for money and status, the best way to achieve those things is to make revolutionary discoveries, so it does not contradict my claim. Regardless of what you say, awards in science are granted for novel discoveries, as is research funding, and with those come status and power. Einstein, Bohr, Planck, and Hawking did not gain their status by making shit up. They actually made discoveries. That's how you make an impact. > > As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. > A few scientists may make things up for financial gain, but I can't think of very many examples, and they certainly don't include the most famous and most prestigious scientists or the most wealthy scientists. The disgraced Andrew Wakefield is one example. But most scientists are pretty honest, and got into science because it is an interesting and agreeable career. And as I said, success in the career (including financial) is measured by novelty and discovery, not by confirmations of old ideas. > > You can set up a project with no hope of success, no scientific value, and > which is a fantastic waste of money, such as Star Wars or plasma fusion. > Scientist will flock to join. > Scientists that flock to join don't agree with your assessment. And why should they? What do you know? Most scientist think of cold fusion research as a waste of time, and yet you wouldn't hold it against your friends if they accepted funding for the research, would you? Many scientists were strongly critical of the SDI, and many of those that became involved rationalized it by potential spin-offs, which have been borne out in things like x-ray laser imaging. Obviously many people who do not benefit from plasma fusion consider the research worth the gamble, your opinion notwithstanding. > They will swear they believe in it. You can present theories with no > basis, no means of verification, and no possible use, such as string > theory. They will publish happily, and award prizes. > But there's not a lotta moolah in string theory. People that go after it are interested in the aesthetics. > > The scientific validity and the degree of novelty has nothing to do with > resistance to a new idea. The only metric that matters is moola. > > The least practical ideas often meet no resistance because no one is > already being paid to do them. > > If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have > cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance, > and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for > screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop. > > You can keep thinking this if it helps you sleep at night, and I suppose if you believe cold fusion, you will believe anything, but this is even less plausible than cold fusion. The plasma fusion people simply don't have that kind of power. How can they affect the research in Japan, Italy, and China? If cold fusion were valid, it would be in the government's interest, strategically, economically, and environmentally, to support it. And the money that supports plasma fusion is from the government. Why would they fund something contrary to their own interest? They are well aware of conflicts of interest, and know how to avoid it in funding the research they deem most productive and useful for their own benefit, and the benefit of the country. And why do the plasma fusion people not shut down research in fission or solar or wind? This sort of paranoid conspiracy theory gives your field a bad name. A single unequivocal demonstration of cold fusion phenomena would result in a stampede of funding and researchers, just as happened in 1989, when people still had reason to trust the judgement of P&F. The reason CF-18 doesn't stand for cold fusion is most likely because cold fusion is illusory.
