Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab anywhere that has a single running cold fusion genre experiment that produces verifiable anomalies? With global exponential evolution in all fields concurrent with the Net...
I like that Widom and Larsen vividly discuss a huge spectrum of anomalies -- any current running examples? I'm also very willing to be astonished... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:41 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: I don't know whether to thank you for providing emotional comfort for my > working hypothesis that cold fusion's excess heat is a real effect, or > whether to curse you for providing such a poor excuse for skepticism that > it will lead guys like me to become lax in our genuine skepticism. > > Going off like this on a single editorial of a single guy -- actually a > relatively inconsequential guy when all is said and done -- like Haglestein > is pretty far from attacking the strongest argument of the opposing > proposition. Stuff like this reminds me of the bad effects of playing an > inferior chess or tennis player. I guess I'll stick with cursing you. > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> 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. >> >> >
