Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
At 03:23 PM 2/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote: There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity. In a way, this is correct. Wikipedia did classify Cold fusion as fringe. However, that only works to the extent that Wikipedia editors, and particularly administrators, would represent a cross-section of scientists. They don't. Nonetheless, there are quite a few Wikipedia administrators who are, indeed, scientists of some kind or other. Mostly they are young, often grad students. Think about who else would have the insane amounts of time it takes to sufficiently impress the Wikipedia community that you'd make a good administrator. The problem is that there is another category, called emerging science. Emerging science might not be recognised by the majority, and emerging science may be emerging from the fringe. When that is happening, we will see increasing publication, recognition of the topic as worthy of research and publication by peer-reviewers at mainstream journals, and other signs of acceptance among those *actually familiar with the research.* Cold fusion is, in fact, quite an unusual case. It is difficult to classify by normal standards. If all that fringe means is that the majority of scientists (who are scientists? All people with a degree in a science?) think that a topic is fringe, regardless of the level of their knowledge of the specific topic, it means little except that controversy exists -- assuming that there are some scientists think it isn't fringe. And most cold fusion researchers do think that Cold fusion is fringe. I.e., that most scientists subjectively feel it is. It's been pointed out that many of the secondary source reviews of cold fusion are defensive, and that this is a sign of fringe science. It is. It means nothing about the science itself. As Jed has pointed out, there is a definition of mainstream that's different. Judging mainstream has to do with publication by independent publishers who are dedicated to general science or to some particular science (or engineering.) Thus, given the two definitions, cold fusion is a mainstream fringe science. Cool, eh?
Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
Abd sez: ... It means nothing about the science itself. As Jed has pointed out, there is a definition of mainstream that's different. Judging mainstream has to do with publication by independent publishers who are dedicated to general science or to some particular science (or engineering.) Thus, given the two definitions, cold fusion is a mainstream fringe science. Cool, eh? I prefer the term frontier science myself. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mathematical definition of fringe. There is, however, a conventional definition of what constitutes mainstream science. It calls for professional scientists, replication, peer-review, a high s/n ratio and various other things. According to this definition, cold fusion is mainstream, not fringe. A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. That would be another definition of fringe, as I said. - Jed
[Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
I do not want to beat this subject to death, but I would like to say what while I agree with Joshua Cude here, we have to make a subtle distinction: And it’s not just Nature or SciAm. Science, all the APS journals, and most others would regard cold fusion as fringe science. It doesn’t matter (for this argument) if they are wrong about cold fusion or not; their perception of it defines it as fringe. It is one of 3 examples of contemporary fringe science on the Wikipedia entry on the subject. And whatever one thinks of Wikipedia, it can’t be denied that this indicates that the perception I was representing is not my own invention. It is true that many people think cold fusion is a fringe subject. They are incorrect, but they think so. The thing is, being fringe or not is not a matter of opinion or perception. These people are biased. They are ignorant. Their views are analogous to the views of white racists in 1900 who did not realize there were any wealthy, high-achieving, superlative black people in the U.S. W. E. B. DuBois sponsored at photographic exhibit at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 to counter this perception. It shocked many Americans, and it revealed how inaccurate the mass media portrayal of black society was. See: http://www.theroot.com/views/web-du-bois-talented-tenth-pictures In other words, most white people in 1900 did not realize that by objective standards of education, achievement, wealth and so on, many black people were among the leading citizens and solid members of the mainstream. Opponents of cold fusion do not realize that most cold fusion researchers are distinguished scientists, and by objective scientific standards of replication, s/n ratios and so on, the research is mainstream. Cude cites Wikipedia as a standard. I think Wikipedia is biased and unreliable, for the reasons given here: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 I think it is better to judge by the weight of evidence in the peer reviewed literature. The fact that most scientists have not, in fact, judged by this standard is irrelevant. A scientist who has not read the literature carefully and evaluated it objectively has no standing, and no right to any opinion about cold fusion, positive or negative. Science is not a popularity contest. Cude also cited the opinion of John Rennie at the Sci. Am. I have corresponded with Rennie. I uploaded his comments. See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam He told me that he has not read the literature because reading scientific paper is not my job. As I said, that disqualifies him. He has no right to an opinion, and we should ignore anything he says about cold fusion. General knowledge of science is of no use when evaluating novel and unexpected experimental results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
Let me add that we are talking about two different definitions of fringe here. This is, in part, a dispute over semantics. Cude is quite right about what he calls fringe and I agree that is a valid use of the word. He is right that cold fusion fits that definition. However, I think that in the context of a scientific discovery, when we invoke concepts such as fringe or marginal or proven we should use the more rigorous definitions. We should stick to mathematical rather than popular culture definitions. When we talk about movies or politics, fringe is defined by whatever the majority thinks. Wikipedia or the New York Times are the arbiters. When we talk about calorimetry or tritium, opinions don't count. The majority view itself may be fringe, even though that seems contradictory. The existing corpus of knowledge described in the textbooks sets the standard. Quantitative measurements such as signal to noise decide the issue. Not a headcount. Not who pulls political strings and gets to write Op Ed columns in Washington Post (Robert Park), or which anonymous nitwit named after a comic-book character prevails in the edit wars at Wikipedia. Decades from now, all knowledge of cold fusion may be lost. After I and others who know the facts die, the mythology alone may survive. The only references in textbooks or the mass media may claim that cold fusion was pathological science that was never replicated, etc. The Wikipedia/Sci. Am. version of history may prevail, because winners write history books. However, the Wikipedia version is incorrect. We can determine this by objective, absolute, universal standards. Cold fusion exists. It always has. It always will. Science does settle some issues beyond question. It is rather quaint to assert absolute faith in the scientific method, but I assert it! I may be mired in the 19th century, but I say there will never be any way to disprove the heat beyond the limits of chemistry, tritium and helium. Replicated experiments are the only standard of truth. Once you achieve a certain level of replication, there is zero chance the results are a mistake. Theory can always be overthrown. Experiments may be re-interpreted. But in this case, the results are too simple and clear-cut to be re-interpreted much. If the term nuclear means anything, and the distinction between chemistry (changes in electron bonds) versus nuclear (changes to the nucleus) mean anything, then cold fusion is a nuclear reaction, by definition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia
There is no mathematical definition of fringe. A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for judging such mass subjectivity. Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:29, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add that we are talking about two different definitions of fringe here. This is, in part, a dispute over semantics. Cude is quite right about what he calls fringe and I agree that is a valid use of the word. He is right that cold fusion fits that definition. However, I think that in the context of a scientific discovery, when we invoke concepts such as fringe or marginal or proven we should use the more rigorous definitions. We should stick to mathematical rather than popular culture definitions. When we talk about movies or politics, fringe is defined by whatever the majority thinks. Wikipedia or the New York Times are the arbiters. When we talk about calorimetry or tritium, opinions don't count. The majority view itself may be fringe, even though that seems contradictory. The existing corpus of knowledge described in the textbooks sets the standard. Quantitative measurements such as signal to noise decide the issue. Not a headcount. Not who pulls political strings and gets to write Op Ed columns in Washington Post (Robert Park), or which anonymous nitwit named after a comic-book character prevails in the edit wars at Wikipedia. Decades from now, all knowledge of cold fusion may be lost. After I and others who know the facts die, the mythology alone may survive. The only references in textbooks or the mass media may claim that cold fusion was pathological science that was never replicated, etc. The Wikipedia/Sci. Am. version of history may prevail, because winners write history books. However, the Wikipedia version is incorrect. We can determine this by objective, absolute, universal standards. Cold fusion exists. It always has. It always will. Science does settle some issues beyond question. It is rather quaint to assert absolute faith in the scientific method, but I assert it! I may be mired in the 19th century, but I say there will never be any way to disprove the heat beyond the limits of chemistry, tritium and helium. Replicated experiments are the only standard of truth. Once you achieve a certain level of replication, there is zero chance the results are a mistake. Theory can always be overthrown. Experiments may be re-interpreted. But in this case, the results are too simple and clear-cut to be re-interpreted much. If the term nuclear means anything, and the distinction between chemistry (changes in electron bonds) versus nuclear (changes to the nucleus) mean anything, then cold fusion is a nuclear reaction, by definition. - Jed
