I have no objection to the letter being improved. However, I think a
letter signed by a collection of Ph.D.s and other scientists would be
more impressive than asking her attitude of a general letter. Without
something new, of course she would say no. The "new" is the obvious
general support of the issue and the new spin.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is a good letter, but it does not directly address the issues
raised by Kevles in her rebuttal, so the editor may not publish it.
Typically, editors will not extend a debate when it seems to be
expanding into new territory or veering off into unrelated subject
matter. (Also, they do not like arguments that go in circles, as when
you repeat the same points you raised initially.)
If we could adjust this letter a little bit to address some of the
statements made by Kevles, I think it would stand a better chance of
being printed. It is clear to me how this letter relates to what Kevles
said, but it may not be clear to other readers. So the connection has be
made more explicit. For example you have to say something like:
"Kevles made a false distinction between the initial experiments
reported by Fleischmann and Pons and later replications of this work
done by others. She fails to understand that knowledge obtained by the
scientific process has a continuity. Initial discoveries are always
incomplete and confusing, perhaps even bordering on 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. . . ."
I think it would also be a good idea to say that the people writing this
letter replicated on the Fleischmann and they respect their work, as I
said in my proposed draft.
Before you go to the trouble of collecting signatures or refining the
message it might be a good idea to ask Violet (the editor) if she would
be willing to publish anything more on this controversy.
- Jed
