> So, we now have a contest.
Not a contest. It's a disagreement. I think CF is almost certainly not real. You seem certain that it is. > Either you and other skeptics are correct or I and other believers in CF are correct. You leave no middle ground. Nature will be the judge and the final judging is getting close. I don't believe the final judging is getting close. I think if it were real, it would have been proven unequivocally a long time ago. But in any case, it is easy to imagine evidence that would change the skeptics' minds in a heartbeat. Energy densities a million times higher than dynamite in a small-scale experiment should be difficult to hide. On the other hand, I can't conceive of any experimental evidence that would convince true believers that they are wrong. I predict another 24 years, very much the same as the previous 24 years, except the number of believers still doing experiments will decrease by attrition. > But the winner in a contest generally gets a reward. I know what my reward would be if I'm right. The whole world would be rewarded if you were right. > What do you expect your reward would be if you are right? None at all. I am almost certainly right, and most of the world already agrees with that. The only thing that could change is the minds of a few hundred true believers, which would be of negligible consequence to me. > Suppose CF is just as you say, a delusion and error, with all the evidence obtained by skilled scientists working in at least 12 countries for 24 years being totally wrong. Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted. > Do you think you will become famous as the person who demonstrated that all these people were wrong? Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis and Huizenga and others. > So, I ask, what is the reason behind this lengthly critique of what Peter says? It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at video games; I've gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion debunking. > If I were you, I would think you would want a plan B if you turn out to be wrong and became the fool. I don't know what you mean. I'd be as happy as the next guy to be able to stop refueling my toyota, and to leave a better planet to our descendants. And I don't mind admitting to being a fool, if I am in the company of the likes of Gell-Mann. > Science does not require me or anyone to reject every observation just because it does not fit my or your concept of Nature. Nothing new would be discovered if this were a requirement of a good scientist. That's true of course. What part of that argument applies to cold fusion that does not also apply to perpetual motion research, which I also believe to be a waste of time? > So, it seems to me, the believers are on the side of the Angels regardless of the outcome That contradicts the entire thrust of Hagelstein's essay. He complains about how believers are the ones who have suffered. I would benefit if CF were real, and I lose nothing if it's not, except for the time and entertainment it has provided. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Yes Joshua, I know you do not believe CF is real. You have been consistent > in this attitude for years as the evidence kept accumulating. So, we now > have a contest. Either you and other skeptics are correct or I and other > believers in CF are correct. You leave no middle ground. Nature will be the > judge and the final judging is getting close. > > But the winner in a contest generally gets a reward. I know what my reward > would be if I'm right. What do you expect your reward would be if you are > right? Suppose CF is just as you say, a delusion and error, with all the > evidence obtained by skilled scientists working in at least 12 countries > for 24 years being totally wrong. Do you think you will become famous as > the person who demonstrated that all these people were wrong? Do you think > books will describe you as one of the sane voices of reason after the error > on which CF is based has been revealed? Of course, you are not attempting > to reveal this error so that fame for this achievement would not fall on > you. So, I ask, what is the reason behind this lengthly critique of what > Peter says? If I were you, I would think you would want a plan B if you > turn out to be wrong and became the fool. > > As for my plan B, I will not need one because I'm simply reporting what I > see and what makes sense, as a scientist is required to do. Science does > not require me or anyone to reject every observation just because it does > not fit my or your concept of Nature. Nothing new would be discovered if > this were a requirement of a good scientist. So, it seems to me, the > believers are on the side of the Angels regardless of the outcome while you > seem to be playing a different game than is normally required in science. > > Ed > > > > > > > On May 3, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the > incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has > wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends > a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and > theory and destroyed careers and suppression but scarcely raises the issue > of the *quality* of the evidence. That's cold fusion's problem: the quality > of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, > alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy and a dozen other pathological sciences. > And an extraordinary claim *does* require excellent evidence. By not > facing this issue, and simply ploughing ahead as if the evidence is as good > as the Wright brothers' Paris flight in 1908, he loses the confidence of > all but true believers that he is being completely honest and forthright. > > *1. On consensus* > > Hagelstein starts out with the science-by-consensus straw man, suggesting > that consensus "was used in connection with the question of the existence > of an excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment." > > Please! No one with any familiarity with the history of science thinks > consensus defines truth (which I think is what he's suggesting scientists > believe). If it did, the ptolemaic solar system would still be taught in > school, and time would still be absolute. Individual qualified scientists > sufficiently motivated to inspect the evidence make judgements based on > that evidence, and, since the modern physics revolution, avoid absolute > certainty, their judgements representing varying degrees of certainty. > > Of course, consensus judgements do form, and are considered by those > unqualified or unmotivated to examine the evidence to get some idea of the > validity of a phenomenon or theory. While consensus does not define truth, > a consensus of experts is the most likely approximation to the truth. And > the stronger the consensus, the more confidence it warrants. Sometimes the > consensus can be very strong, as in the current consensus that the solar > system is Copernican. I have not made the astronomical measurements to > prove that it is, although my observations are certainly consistent with > it, but my confidence in the description comes from the unanimous consensus > among those who have made or analyzed the necessary measurements. Likewise, > confidence in the shape of the earth is essentially absolute, and serious > humans dismiss members of the flat-earth society as deluded, or more likely > dishonest. > > So, when it comes to allocating funding, hiring or promoting, or awarding > prizes or honors, there's really no option but to consult experts in the > respective field -- essentially to rely on the consensus. It's the worst > system except for all the others. > > Hagelstein claims that cold fusion is an example of the Semmelweis reflex, > in which an idea is rejected because it falls outside the existing > consensus. That reflex is named after the rejection of Semmelweis's > (correct) hand-washing theory in 1847, which Hagelstein cites. Then he goes > on to mock a scientific system in which ideas outside the consensus are > rejected and the people who propose them are ostracized in a ridiculous > parody that bears no resemblance at all to the actual practice of science. > It's the usual way true believers rationalize the rejection of their > favorite fringe science. But it's truly surprising to see that Hagelstein > has no more awareness of the reality of science than the many cold fusion > groupies who populate the internet forums. Of course there is a certain > inertia in science, and that is probably not a bad thing, even if it > sometimes has negative consequences, but there's so much wrong about the > way the phenomenon is applied here: > > i) Hagelstein fails to mention that in 1989 the announcement of P&F was > greeted with widespread enthusiasm and optimism both inside and outside the > scientific mainstream; that Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of > scientists at an ACS meeting; that scientists all over the world ran to > their labs to try to reproduce the effect to get in on the new and > fantastic revolution; that eventual uber-skeptic Douglas Morrison was > breathlessly optimistic writing: " I feel this subject will become so > important to society […] the present big power companies will be running > down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium > separation plants…" and so on. In fact, people took great pleasure in the > idea that a couple of chemists could so revolutionize science. Semmelweis > received no such reaction. Cold fusion was an example of the > anti-semmelweis reflex, where people delight in bucking the system. It > wasn't until people started doing experiments and examining the evidence of > others that skepticism began to dominate. > > ii) In spite of inertia in science, the most revolutionary ideas in > physics were accepted immediately. Einstein's photons and Bohr's discrete > atomic levels and deBroglie's particle waves were all embraced, because > they fit the data. The most celebrated and honored scientists are the ones > who revolutionize thought, in direct contradiction to the claims of > Hagelstein. For example, he writes "If one decides to focus on a question > in this context that is outside of the body of questions of interest to the > scientific community, then one must understand that this will lead to an > exclusion from the scientific community. " So were Einstein, Bohr, and > deBroglie excluded from the scientific community? No, they were all given > Nobel prizes. Some exclusion! > > Now, he might argue that that's ancient history, and the problems he's > talking about are recent. In fact he writes: "There are no examples of any > researcher fighting for an area outside of science and winning in modern > times." I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say here. *His* example was > from 160 years ago, and that was egregious, but is he now saying it doesn't > happen any more? Isn't that a good thing? > > There are certainly still examples of results that fall outside the > current consensus. Things like dark energy and the accelerating expansion > of the universe, for example. This was completely contrary to expectations, > but was accepted rather quickly, so to that extent Hagelstein is right; > they did not have to fight for the area. It resulted in a Nobel prize in > 2011, and here's what Perlmutter said in his Nobel speech: "Perhaps the > only thing better for a scientist than finding the crucial piece of a > puzzle that completes a picture is finding a piece that doesn't fit at all, > and tells us that there is a whole new part of the puzzle that we haven't > even imagined yet and the scene in the puzzle is bigger, richer than we > ever thought." Science celebrates innovation and discovery; it does not > suppress it. > > There are other examples like high temperature superconductivity, also > unexpected and unexplained but accepted immediately, and also resulting in > a Nobel prize (in record time). > > There is also the discovery of quasicrystals by Dan Shechtman. This > discovery actually did meet considerable resistance, and required Shechtman > to fight for his area. Pauling said there are no quasi-crystals, only > qausi-scientists. But it was not like cold fusion in that his results from > the beginning were published in the best journals, and he began winning > awards for the work only a few years after the discovery, and in 2011 he > was also given the Nobel prize. > > There is also the example of the faster than light neutrinos. Most > physicists were skeptical, but the idea was certainly given a hearing: > Here's a scientist quoted in a recent report in the Washington Post: “The > theorists are now knotted up with conflicting emotions. As much as they > support Einstein, they’d also love for the new finding to be true. It’d be > weirdly thrilling. They’d get to rethink everything. If neutrinos violate > the officially posted cosmic speed limit, the result will be the Full > Employment Act for Physicists.” > > So, it's nonsense to suggest that working outside the current consensus > leads to exclusion. (It can, of course, if the area really has no merit.) > Scientists crave revolutionary and disruptive results. It's very clear that > honor, fame, glory, and funding come to those who make major discoveries. > Not those who add decimal points. The most famous scientists are those who > revolutionized fields. The buzz words in grant proposals are "new physics" > or "physics beyond the standard model". And that's why the world (the > scientific world) went briefly nuts in 1989. Everyone wanted to be part of > the revolution; no one wanted to be left behind. > > And the fact that Hagelstein had to go back 160 years for a really > egregious case of suppression is an indication that things have improved. > And even in that case, Semmelweis's ideas were vindicated in about 20 > years, although it was too late for him. I'm not aware of a modern example > of a bench-top (small-scale) phenomenon that was rejected by the mainstream > for decades, that proved to be right. And cold fusion is very unlikely to > change that situation. > > *2) quality of the evidence* > > As already mentioned, Hagelstein hardly considers the quality of the > evidence. However, when he wrote "The current view within the scientific > community is that these fields [nuclear physics and condensed matter > physics] have things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in > the lab, then the problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view > prevailed in 1989…" he admits that the evidence was, at least at the > beginning easy to dismiss. (What he ignores here, as he did earlier in the > paper, is that at first, most (or at least much) of mainstream science > *did* accept their claims and started to look for ways to modify known > theories.) > > But then, in the next sentence, he suggests the quality of evidence has > improved without giving any specific reason to think so: "Such a view > prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in > cold fusion labs is much clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very > big effect; it is reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate > energetic products; there are many replications; and there are other > anomalies as well." > > It's difficult to imagine a more vague testimony in cold fusion's favor. > Is there any year in the 90s that that could not have been written (or that > some form of it wasn't)? It as much as admits the opposite of what he > claims: the situation in cold fusion labs is no clearer now than it ever > has been. And a little later in the paper, he admits that explicitly when > he says: "aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very > little that our community agrees on". > > Hagelstein makes almost no specific reference to experimental evidence, > and one example he chooses, if examined, emphasizes its marginal nature. > > He says that Morrison frequently cited negative results from the KEK > group, but then rejected their positive result. But in the latest KEK paper > (1998) , one finds: "Since spring of 1989 we have attempted to confirm the > so-called cold fusion phenomenon … Until now a burst-like heat release, > equivalent to 110% of the input electric power, was observed in one > cell…Further studies as well as reproductions of the anomalies are becoming > highly essential to understand totally these abnormal phenomena." > > That's a bit selective, admittedly, since they also claim weak evidence > for helium and a very low neutron signal "once", but still, 9 years, and > one positive excess heat cell in a burst-like heat release with a COP of > 1.1? Is it any wonder, the funding was cancelled? And the authors were > equivocal too, writing in the summary: "The heat burst in particular must > be reproduced repeatedly to solve the question whether it is nuclear origin > or not. It seems Morrison's skepticism was well justified. > > So, it is not simply the disagreement with established physics that led to > the rejection of cold fusion. It was (and is) the low quality of the > evidence, which never seems to get better. Hagelstein would do well to face > that truth head-on. > > *3) Career calculus* > > The end of Hagelstein's essay devolves into a pit of paranoia and > self-pity. When he asks "how many careers should be destroyed in order to > achieve whatever goal is proposed as justification? " he has gone off the > deep end. No one does calculus with anyone's careers. But science is about > making judgements, and scientists spend a large fraction of their time > exercising their judgement, both to direct their own efforts, and in the > service of others as reviewers for journals, hiring and promotion > committees, granting agencies, and awards organizations. Great scientists > are venerated by other scientists for their accomplishments. It is only > fair that their failures, as judged by the same body, count against them. > > P & F were distinguished scientists precisely because they had impressed > mainstream science with their work. When mainstream science rejected their > claims, it was (is) incumbent on the mainstream to express that rejection, > without regard for the consequences. And anyway, Pons had tenure and > Fleischmann was retired. They were as protected from career destruction as > they could be. They went to France voluntarily to take advantage of a > funding opportunity, so to the extent their careers (or their legacies) > were "destroyed", it was their own doing. They opened themselves up to > harsh criticism by not only going public, but doing it in a non-scientific, > uncharacteristically incautious way. Witness the almost painfully slow and > tentative announcements of the Higgs boson or of the FTL neutrinos. P&F > threw caution to the wind. They were adamant and they became angry. I think > they got what they deserved. > > What does he expect? That science should pretend to accept claims, even if > they don't, in order to preserve the careers of the claimants? > > Hagelstein's conclusion that science should approve of efforts in cold > fusion to see progress in the field, is based on the premise that cold > fusion is real. If science rejects the premise, then the conclusion does > not follow. > > >
