Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Actually, I was delighted by Barandes' response, for several reasons: Any publicity is good publicity. If every newspaper in the country would print scathing letters attacking CF, readers everywhere would begin to ask themselvesm What's up, and why are these people so upset? It gives me an "in." After printing such a harsh letter, the Crimson may well print my response. Intelligent readers will see through his arguments. As Huxley said of Wilburforce in similar circumstances, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands." If you cannot debate a smart person, a fool is the second best choice. It is true that Infinite Energy did print some far out stuff -- some too far out, in my opinion. The person who decided to print it was Gene Mallove, who had a PhD from Harvard and one from MIT, too. (This kind of thing matters to the sons of . . . Harvard.) I am thick skinned, and people like Barandes do not bother me. On the contrary, I enjoy rattling their cages and getting the rise out of them. It makes my day to see people like him spout off in places like the Crimson. - Jed
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Steven Krivit wrote.. >Jed,>You didn't include the last paragraph from Barandes. It was juicy, and of >course nasty. I'm going to keep it for historical purposes. The extreme >point of view and the viciousness, I think, will be something fascinating >to look back on. StevenI was shocked, shocked that the Crimson would print the comment. As Claude Rains said in the movie " Casablanca".. " am shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here" Perhaps my higher expectation of Harvard to maintain an intellectual standard that challenges the mind of the student has been misplaced. Publishing such a comment degrades the licsense permitted Universities to engage in the pursuit of knowledge.Certainly, Harvard has the right to do so ..but.. at the expense of revelation of an inner conflict within the halls of academia. A conflict, unless addressed, degrades the purpose of the institution. Certain institutions hold truths to be self evident, certain are in the business of masquerading the truth ans some cast it to the ground. Harvard needs to get back to laboring in the vineyards of learning and leave the grapes of wrath be trampled by oppressors. A university cannot be both , else they become a paradox evidenced by ancient Athens,making the mistake of confusing wisdom with knowledge. I once noticed a plaque over the bench of a criminal court's judge that stated " all that seek justice labor here". Steven Krivit is a candidate for coming up with a CF slogan that has legs. Richard
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Just for the rest of us, here's the final bit of the "The Crimson" letter... << Rothwell is a contributing editor at Infinite Energy magazine, a fringe publication devoted to the study of "New Energy," which the magazine's website defines to be "the term applied to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the 'scientific establishment.'" In addition to cold fusion, the editors include "New Energy" to mean other pseudoscientific buzzwords like "zero-point energy" and "significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics." Charlatans peddling "perpetual motion machines" and other limitless sources of free energy have been around for centuries. The public really doesn't need The Crimson spreading such falsehoods and granting these hucksters much-craved legitimacy. JACOB A. BARANDES Cambridge, Mass. July 22, 2005 The writer is a graduate student in physics at Harvard. >>
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Jed, One more thing I forgot to mention. I had a very pleasant chat with Chase Peterson yesterday. We were just talking about some of the old days of cold fusion for him. Peterson sees the picture quite clearly: The "cold fusion episode" is much bigger than cold fusion. It is about major issues in the philosophy of science and how the world of science currently responds to new ideas. I think sometimes when we see unscientific responses like that published in the Crimson, that we often forget how big this subject really is, and perhaps the reasonable, monumental effort which is and will be required to bring about a transformation in understanding. One brick at a time... s
Re: A response in the Harvard Crimson
Jed, You didn't include the last paragraph from Barandes. It was juicy, and of course nasty. I'm going to keep it for historical purposes. The extreme point of view and the viciousness, I think, will be something fascinating to look back on. I'm finding, more and more, that it's helpful to talk with those who will listen and show some interest, and leave the rest alone. The Crimson made an editorial decision. I have to assume they are intelligent people and understand what a disgusting ad hominem and unsubstantiated attack this was. I also have to assume that the Crimson was "testing the waters" with your pro-cold fusion letter - and they subsequently decided that there was a strong contrarian viewpoint that they had better represent, lest they appear too "progressive." Honestly, I think they may not even have published your letter a few years ago. We all know that CF has followed the scientific method. Many of us accept that it is a demonstrable and a true effect of nature. My thought is that It's just a matter of time before the rest of the world knows it too. How much time? I don't know. Remember what Stan Pons said in 1989: "It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited have taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty. .. They might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science.'' I do see a progression occurring. It's slow, and it may only be evident over the next few years, but it is clearly visible. ITER's pathetic situation and deservedly bad press, in my view, has given a tremendous boost to the view of CF in some circles, or at least those outside of Harvard yard. At the March APS meeting, Scott Chubb and I spoke with the editor of a very prestigious physics journal who is a prof at another Ivy League school. The idea of a CF lecture on campus came up. I have not heard of any follow-through with it yet, but it seems possible in the future. And then, in less than one month from now, I will present to the orthodox scientists at the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Systems, "How can cold fusion be real, considering it was disproved by several well-respected laboratories in 1989?" http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/ICENES-2005/KrivitS-ICENES2005-Abstract.pdf . I'm not expecting an overly-friendly reception by this fission and hot fusion nuke physics crowd, but I'm still going to tell it the way I see it. We'll see who is receptive. For reasons unknown to me, somebody, or some people on the organizing committee on ICENES made the (enlightened, IMO) decision that it was time they, and their attendees learn more about cf. Let's see where this goes s
A response in the Harvard Crimson
Well, well. Someone responded in the usual manner. See: http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article508328.html To The Editors: In his recent letter to The Crimson (Madrian Mistaken About Cold Fusion Debate, July 22), Jed Rothwell writes regarding cold fusion research that the claim was never invalidated. Rothwell then goes on to state that cold fusion has been replicated by hundreds of major laboratories worldwide, when in fact the research has had no such success. Rothwell is a contributing editor at Infinite Energy magazine, a fringe publication devoted to the study of New Energy, which the magazines website defines to be the term applied to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the scientific establishment. In addition to cold fusion, the editors include New Energy to mean other pseudoscientific buzzwords like zero-point energy and significant extensions to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . Now we shall see whether the Crimson allows this kind of ad hominem attack to go unanswered. - Jed
