On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Randy wuller <[email protected]> wrote:
** > Cude would argue that there isn't a newly discovered (new is of course > relative) phenomenon and that everyone investigating it is deluded, > incompetent or both. What he can't explain is why anyone would run around > the internet trying to stop people from investigating a phenomenon. It > makes no sense and is probably a symptom of the very negative period (I > would describe it as the age of pessimism) we find ourselves living through. > I think this gets an an interesting point. Part of the problem with the strong criticism of cold fusion, it seems to me, is that there is a lack of accountability in the final outcome. Assume for the moment that cold fusion is sorted out in the next twenty years and is commercialized. Afterwards people will not care too much about the Parks and the Huizengas. They'll probably just sort fade into history as polemicists and be forgotten apart from whatever valuable they contributed to their fields. So in this sense there appears to be little to be lost in pushing out criticism that later turns out to have been unfounded nonsense. Some appear to feel empowered to say whatever negative things they please without worrying that they might turn out to be wrong later on. By contrast, in the hard sciences especially, if someone makes a mistake and accidentally shows interest in a development that turns out to be a flop, it is very embarrassing for him or her. In this sense there is a kind of moral hazard that has been allowed to develop, where there is little accountability for unfounded criticism but disproportionately negative outcomes for misplaced interests. This fear of failure, of making mistakes, and this culture of unbounded criticism -- they add much heat and little light to questions that deserve objective, dispassionate attention. It's hard to say exactly what creates this situation -- perhaps immaturity, for example. But always be sure to follow the money as well. Eric
