Jed has suggested another letter to the Yale Newspaper and that several
people have expressed an interest in signing such letter. I believe we
have beat the reality of cold fusion to death and need to raise the
issue to a new level. Therefore, I have provided another letter and ask
if anyone would like to sign this before it is sent to the Yale Newspaper.
Regards,
Ed
The proper Role of Scholars in Examining Science.
Recent news articles about corruption in science and the recent letters
to the editor provided by Prof. Kevles and Dr. Storms have revealed an
important difference in how conflict in science is interpreted. This
difference is made especially clear when a comparison is made between
viewpoints based on personal knowledge of the subject and those based on
secondary sources. The subject of “cold fusion” has become a timely and
important example of this issue. Many people believe "cold fusion", as
first claimed by Prof. Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, is an example of
bad science that was subsequently shown to be wrong. This attitude has
been institutionalized in books and by uninformed people who continue to
use the myth as an example of bad science. These repeated examples
continue to accumulate and add to the general myth, even though the myth
is no longer valid. As a result, the myth grows when scholars and
reporters do not re-examine the subject, instead accept what is
considered common knowledge.
To a scientist, knowledge obtained by the scientific process has a
continuity. Initial discoveries are always incomplete and confusing,
perhaps even bad science. Gradually the work is refined and accepted.
This is a normal process that does not distract from any inadequacies
present in the initial work. On the other hand, people who have a
skeptical disposition look at the work in isolation. If the initial
discovery is not perfect, it is rejected as bad science. This
interpretation of science is especially dangerous when it comes from a
professor working at a major university. It is dangerous because it
inhibits new discovery and discussion of novel ideas. It is dangerous
because science will not advance if new work is subjected to rejection,
ridicule, and criticism because it is not complete and consistent with
established knowledge. All professors should know this because it is
their job to advance knowledge, in addition to encouraging high
standards. The challenge is to make these two roles work together, not
be in conflict, as is the case when “cold fusion” is used as an example
of bad science.
