Cude what does this have to do with F&P having been replicated in many
labs all over the world? You need to accept that the FPE is real and
move on to working out why it happens. Oh BTW you just might apologize
to F&P for the treatment they received by you and your mates.
Would you please disclose if your income / pay check depends on you not
believing the FPE is real and / or working to trash anyone who does? I
ask because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the FPE.
On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a
lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It
starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most
important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a
revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict,
this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the
university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years.
Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize.
You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his
revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university.
You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No,
because they named one after him.
etc.
You can't just make shit up to please your audience.
I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a
revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and
didn't have religious objectors.
Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an
example. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but
according to it, his controversial ideas were presented in his
doctoral thesis, so he didn't have a position to be kicked out of. And
while there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, if only as
3rd class. Nevertheless, when the dissertation was sent to other
European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't
really sound much like cold fusion, does it?
The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes
of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years
of vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was
*given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full
professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't
sound much like ridicule, does it?
It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize,
but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17
years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in
chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his
death, and it seems he was not a particularly nice guy himself,
arranging awards for his friends, and attempting to deny them to his
enemies. He also got involved in racial biology (eugenics) later in
his life.
That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that
scientists welcome new ideas.
Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to
history, instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in
cold fusion. Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high
temperature superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was
awarded -- now get this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory
to support it, was unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not
dismissed from their positions. Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most
Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take much longer, because it
usually takes time for the importance to become manifest, but new
discoveries are always celebrated in science, by scientists.
As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in
centuries, relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they
could be developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly.
Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of
degrees, to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting
awards, to giving funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication,
to any degree of fame and glory, has as its first criterion:
*** novelty ***.
What scientists fear is not new ideas (they crave them), but wrong
ideas. Scientists are skeptical; they have to be. Skepticism is a
critical filter in guiding research. Without it, they would simply
flounder around, like, well, like cold fusion researchers.
Of course, that sometimes leads to rejecting good ideas, and finding
the right balance is the most important quality a scientist can strive
for. Linus Pauling was clever enough to win 2 Nobel prizes, and yet he
ridiculed quasi-crystals. At the other end is perhaps Josephson, who
got a Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student, when skeptical
guidance was still provided by others. On his own, his lack of
skepticism has led him to dabble in the paranormal, and to a life's
work wholly unworthy of his brilliant beginning.
After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said,
"Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation,
he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen
to you." I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall
be dismissed as well."
Their ideas were dismissed, but they were not fired from academic
positions. Fleischmann was already retired, and continued to list his
affiliation with Southampton until at least 1994. Pons was tenured,
and left voluntarily for greener pastures and more money in France.
Even so, he also listed his affiliation with Utah for several years
after he left.
