On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
(The claims of "public demonstrations" by Rossi are *all* marred, so far, > by possible error or fraud modes that were overlooked at the time, and > Rossi has consistently refused support by people like Jed Rothwell, who > would design accurate tests. However, see above. Con artist or shrewd > entrepreneur. See, lots of people are uncomfortable with not knowing > things, so often will make up a story, "aha! *This* is what is happening," > when they don't have enough evidence to do more than guess.) > People are quite uncomfortable saying "I don't know," e.g., about Andrea Rossi and the other entrepreneurs, even when this is the most reasonable conclusion at the moment. I think it's fine to have a hunch, even a strong one -- in the case of Rossi, one's hunch might be that he'll eventually be confirmed, or perhaps it is that he's found something weird but he can't get it to work reliably, or perhaps it's that he's nothing more than a huckster. But people want to go beyond hunches and settle the matter for good in their minds and in public venues. No one wants to be swindled by one's own gullibility, either privately or in front of others, and I suspect that this kind of cognitive pressure underlies some of the close-mindedness out there. With regard to the blogs, science magazines and scientific journals, the impression is that there are distinct groups (to zoom in a little on part of the list that Jeff's friend provided): 1. Scientists, engineers and other technically-minded people who are keeping an open mind (the large majority) 2. Capable journalists who are prepared to do careful, meticulous work, assuming their editors permit them to publish (a minority at this point) 3. Journalists and commentators who see themselves as too busy to understand the history and the nuances of the experimental record, who forgo a careful examination of the facts, and who partly as a result allow their own biases to introduce a certain spin into their articles, which end up repeating the usual tropes (the majority of journalists and commentators right now) 4. Scientists and science journalists who have been taken in by an idee fixe that has derailed an adequate examination of the matter (a vocal minority) Note that the people in group (4) are sometimes quite knowledgeable. They may have come to an erroneous conclusion about the possibility of cold fusion, but they are often too honest with the specifics to make their books completely useless. Despite Huizenga's attachment to the requirement that neutrons be observed for the P&F effect to be considered non-chemical, you can still learn some interesting things from his book. I am enjoying Frank Close's book right now, and I suspect that I will Nate Hoffman's book as well. Neither Close's nor Hoffman's books appear to be polemical tracts in the way that Huizinga's book is. Gradually the facts escape the confusion and misstatement of the popular press and make it in bits and pieces to the people who matter. Eric
