At 04:19 PM 3/27/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
It was recently opined here that it is not the
job of a reporter to challenge dogma. This was
followed up with another opinion: That the job
of a reporter is to find and present facts
that science reporters should find and present scientific fact.
It's tricky. Facts challenge dogma. Or confirm
it. A science reporter should report discovered
fact whether it challenges dogma or not,
according to the interests of the "market," the
audience for the reporter. The market for honest
reporters is those who will rely upon the
reports, so it's very important that the reporter
be neutral. And that can be difficult.
Nevertheless, this is the task of a journalist.
Personally, I think challenging dogma IS one of
the many jobs that an investigative journalist performs.
Only in the way I've described. When the reporter
becomes attached to some "alternate dogma," --
which might simply be the reporter's own opinion,
informed or otherwise -- it is not the job of the
reporter to promote that alternative to
"challenge dogma." The reporter has become the story, has lost neutrality.
Neutrality does not mean that the report abandons
personal conclusions. It does not mean ignoring
the obvious. But it does mean allowing the reader
to discriminate, to present to the reader the
sources for the journalist's opinion, in balance.
Balance means that if sources of similar probity
exist that support the other side (than the
reporter's opinion), the reporter will present
those as well. Strong personal bias on the part
of the reporter can cause a failure of the
reporter to even notice the other sources; the
same traps that cause anyone to become biased can happen to a reporter.
Actually, I would like to believe it's the job
of everyone to challenge dogma whenever they
see it. Of course, one person's perception of
"fact" often turns out to be another person's
perception of "dogma", and, oh, what a squabble
that can produce betwixt us all.
It's not as difficult as it seems. Attribution
and fidelity to source can work miracles. Krivit,
the unfortunate occasion for this discussion,
reports his opinion and his interpretations as
fact, and loses attribution. Obviously, the topic
of whether or not fusion is taking place is a
controversial one, with controversy even among
experts professionally qualified to judge.
Because Krivit lost his balance, he misrepresents
what the "fusion" camp believes and reports, and
he misrepresents the evidence. And that's been shown, I believe, clearly.
It has nothing to do with dogma. If he were doing
the same thing on the fusion side, I'd be
similarly offended. I have made statements about
Widom-Larsen theory that may be incorrect, I may
have erred in presenting it. But I do not present
myself as an expert, and I'm largely depending on
Krivit's statements about it. I depend on others
here to find and correct my errors. I'd say that,
in a year, I've become somewhat "familiar" with
this field, and part of how I've done that is by
sticking my foot in my mouth, and saying what I
think, it is one of the fastest ways to learn. I
need to be corrected when I make mistakes.
I have lots of questions about Widom-Larsen
theory, and if "fusion" is the dogma -- and I'll
say that it is now, among the workers in the
field, an accepted theory as an explanation for
excess heat, without being specific about the
exact fusion mechanism -- then is W-L theory a
challenge to the dogma? Part of the problem with
Krivit is that he places W-L theory in opposition
to some "fusion" theory, but all his presentation
of the "fusion theory" is of straight deuterium,
two deuteron, fusion, which then sets up a straw
man that is easy to knock down with all the
arguments of 1989. However, the 1989 rejection,
we are now confident, was premature. If it is
possible that there are other nuclear
explanations than straight deuterium fusion, then
it is also possible that there is some
as-yet-not-understood mechanism that might allow
straight deuterium fusion. Such as, say, a
quantum mechanical phenomenon that distributes
the energy of a reaction across a crystal,
similar to the Mossbauer effect. Don't mistake
this for a proposed theory of mine! It's just an
example, which can be shot down, as can just
about every theory, if we assume that we
understand well what happens in the condensed matter environment.
Turns out that we don't.
But it would indeed be Krivit's job to present
W-L theory, so that we understand it. And,
remarkably, he does not seem to be doing that.
Instead, he's impeaching the character and
probity of the bulk of the cold fusion research
"establishment." He's attacking the alleged
dogmatists, not the dogma, and he shouldn't even
attack the dogma. At least not as a reporter who
would have a right to be trusted when he reports on what we don't know!
Investigative reporting is a difficult field,
where the edges of journalistic ethics are
approached. I would prefer to not even call these
people reporters, they are investigators,
researchers. They are *creating* a story. In
writing about cold fusion "dogma," Krivit has
become a kind of researcher, and should no longer
be considered an objective secondary source. He's
writing opinion papers, and, unfortunately, he
doesn't seem to understand the material, and
that's become very obvious from the errors he
made, some of these were blatant errors that he
had heavily committed to, making accusations
about the openness and honesty of a researcher
based on his own misunderstanding. He should have
apologized profusely, and more, he should have
looked at what was causing him to so quickly
conclude that there were shenanigans taking
place. That's what bias can do to you.
Regarding journalism, the Society of
Professional Journalism (the SPJ) has a lot of
interesting things to say about the code of
ethics that investigative journalists should follow. For details see:
<http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp>http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
While on the subject of the ethics of
investigative journalism, and for a more
controversial debate concerning the limits of
"Cotcha" investigative journalism, here is an
article about a former ABC producer, Linne Dale,
who performed an undercover investigation of a
company called Food Lion, and the company's
illegal practices which were endangering public
health. The ABC article when it eventually aired
helped destroy the company, but not after a
protracted and expensive battle spearheaded, of
course, by Food Lion's legal team. The doomed
company attempted to obfuscate and deflect the
original ABC claims by claiming fraud,
trespassing and breach of loyalty. Most
curiously, they did not pursue libel.
Fortunately, for the sake media freedom, Food Lion's tactic didn't work:
<http://rsjsoup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-ethics-of-investigative>http://rsjsoup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-ethics-of-investigative
But getting back to the SPJ web site, a lot of
sensible things are listed out there. Good
sensible things that every investigative
journalist ought to ponder carefully before
practicing their trade. Incidentally, while
pondering the dos and don'ts of investigative
journalism nowhere did I read a commandment
stating that those who pursue this profession should not challenge dogma.
That's a misunderstanding of what's being said.
The work of reporters can and will challenge some
dogma. But challenging dogma isn't the purpose of
reporting; when it is, that's where we get a kind
of sensationalism. A good reporter neither
challenges nor supports dogma, but presents material of interest, in balance.
Actually "challenging dogma", isn't what really
piqued my interest. What piqued my interest was
wondering if anyone here really believes they
have the right to determine for everyone else
what "dogma" is versus what is "scientific fact."
I don't believe that, for one. However, I don't
particularly have a difficulty in understanding
the difference. They are not at all the same
thing. Dogma is a kind of belief, accepted
without question by some. It is *never* a fact,
it is, rather, a kind of organizer of fact, and a way of interpreting fact.
However, this is where they get confused. What is
the difference betweeen a "fact" and a
"scientific fact"? The latter term can be used to
refer to dogma, and people do that. "It is a
scientific fact that the Earth is round."
Technically -- and this is extreme, now -- that's
not a scientific fact, it is, rather a theory
that is so strongly supported by "fact" that it
isn't questioned but by very few now. It has
become dogma. Now, if the job of reporters is to
challenge dogma, should they do some
investigative reporting to "challenge the dogma"?
I don't think so! But if they find facts that do
have that effect, of course they should report
them (if they are relevant to their field of work).
By "scientific fact," however, I prefer to mean
the body of data that has been collected by
"scientists," who are the real "investigative
reporters." Data, not theories and conclusions.
However, routinely, we do allow some level of
filtering and organization by the "investigative
reporters," the scientists. When a scientist does
this to prove a personal point, we recognize this
as Bad Science, the scientist has lost
neutrality. It happens. So, loosely, there is a
level of interpretation in what we would accept
as "scientific fact." When a scientist runs a
cold fusion experiment, say looking for excess
heat and helium, the truest "scientific facts"
are the raw experimental data, the account of
what was done and what was observed. It's my
opinion that, with the internet, all this should
be published. Warts and all. But for a "paper,"
the scientist will interpret the data, following
accepted procedures, ideally, not some new
innovation, unless the innovation is reported
well enough for anyone else to come up with the
same results from the same raw data.
The ENEA paper that Krivit had a field day with
used a 24 MeV value for the ratio of excess heat
to helium measurement, in order to plot the
results from two measures on the same chart.
Given that there is a reasonable hypothesis out
there, widely accepted, that the actual Q value
is close to that, it was a figure of interest,
but the paper did not attempt to do what Krivit
claimed, try to prove 24 MeV, and, in fact, the
data point that fell right on 24 MeV was probably
there because of coincidence and very wide error
margins. It was the weakest measurement reported.
Krivit presents this as if it were being claimed
as a proof of 24 MeV. In attempting to
recalculate the values, Krivit made a number of
errors and became completely confused, and all
this has been pointed out, yet he still
confidently presents this paper and this result
as an example of the dogma he's challenging. It
was just a handy and informative conversion
factor, allowing a single y-axis to present data from two connected results.
Does the paper support 24 MeV? A little. Not that
result, the one that was so noisy (because the
excess heat was low and so was the helium), but
the other two. Krivit completely misses the point.
And this is not an isolated incident.
It seems to me that the polarity of perception,
when placed on a scale where "dogma" resides at
one end and "scientific fact" the other, often
boils down to a difference of opinion. All too
often when opposing opinions, including those of
a journalistic nature, perform battle in the
arena the results tend to generate a lot of
rancorous debate, acrimony, hard feelings,
broken friendships and strained alliances.
A scale with "opinion" on one end and "scientific
fact" on the other is an interesting idea. I'm
having some trouble applying it, though. If I'm
confused about the difference between opinion and
fact, I don't know myself. Sure, it happens,
which is why it's an interesting idea. The scale
is one of how confused someone or some idea is.
What is really being approached here is
differences of opinions, with one opinion
asserting itself as "scientific fact," and the
other opinion makes the same claim!
Step above this dispute and see two dogmas
battling it out! Can we all step above this
dispute? I think so. Where do we start?
Well, there are two approaches. One is to explore
the facts, find out what facts are mutually
accepted. If we are arguing, one source may be
that we are accepting different sets of facts.
What facts can we agree on? Is "cold fusion" a
fact? Of course not! It's a high-level
abstraction, it cannot be directly observed and
reported, except through a long series of
assumptions. What we might accept, though, is the
body of experimental results. We might want to
except certain ones, and there is plenty of room
for disagreement there. If we disagree on what
should be rejected, we should then explore the facts behind that!
Simultaneously, there is an exploration from the
other end, which is the exploration of belief. If
we are having an argument, we should try to make
sure that we understand what it's about! As part
of that, I should be able to, ideally, state your
opinion so well that you would say, "Yes. That is
what I believe." If I can't, it should be in
serious doubt that I understand what I'm arguing
against. I learned this from a minister who was
teaching a class on Islam that I found out about
and attended. I'm an expert. He was quite good,
and he told me that this was his goal. Did we
have any arguments? No. We probably could have
found some by trying hard. And then we might have
had an even more interesting discussion!
Krivit does not appear to understand the general
fusion hypothesis as widely accepted in the
field. What he states isn't what is believed.
He's attacking a straw man, but what is damaging
is that, to the general public, and in particular
to scientists who are quite reasonably skeptical,
he's being read as having reversed his position
as a notable "advocate" for cold fusion, and he's
now showing that the whole "cold fusion"
establishment is just "true believers." These
scientists can read Krivit's report, and quite
possibly, detect that he is only hand-waving when
he proposes W-L theory, for he doesn't present it
in such a way as to make it intelligible. So what
they walk away with is a confirmation of what
they believed all along. "They are all crazy."
They don't get the evidence behind Krivit's claim
that "But it *is* LENR." Because Krivit is so
busy impeaching the strongest of it, which is not
"proof of 24 MeV" but correlation of excess heat
with helium within a factor of two or so of 24 MeV.
And that is a result without significant
variation across the entire body of experimental
evidence we have. With proper qualification --
I'd really want to see more secondary review of
this -- this is a "scientific fact." The
*meaning* of it is another thing. Cold fusion is
so strong as an explanation of this heat, even
without knowing the mechanism, that is is almost
dogma now, but a very diffuse dogma. It certainly
isn't a dogma that the reaction is straight
deuterium fusion! I don't believe that, and few
do. But, again, I'd want to see a secondary
review of the field of theory, more has been
published since Storms, 2007,an overview. I should see what Krivit has written!
But I'd much rather see something by a
theoretical physicist published in an appropriate
journal under peer review. Some of the theories
are extremely difficult to understand for a
layman. I have more background than Krivit, and I
don't have a background even close enough to have
an opinion on some of these. I have a friend who
is a quantum physicist and I asked him to look at
one paper. No comment so far. This is difficult stuff.
What is often missed in the ensuing battle for
dominance is the fact that ALL opinions, no
matter what position they take, end up getting
bruised and lacerated by the same double edged
sword. This double edged sword is more often
than not powered by the seductive emotions of
outrage. The seductive double edged sword of
outrage doesn't care whose opinion is being
slaughtered. It simply strikes. It strikes
repeatedly because it is addictively delicious to do so.
Yeah, that happens.
I know that I am not immune to the sword's
seductive power. I constantly try to remind
myself of a concept attributed to another
learned man whose credentials remain steeped in
mythology: Let he who is free of imperfection,
let he who knows he has freed himself from the
clutches of dogma and the seductive emotions of
outrage cast the first strike. At times I know I
have failed miserably when I struck out at
others when perhaps I should have held my
tongue, and pen. At least I try to be aware of
the sword's seductive presence in my life. That's half the battle.
Sure. But then there is the other half.
In conclusion, I could speculate that there
might be a few lurking within the catacombs of
the Vort Collective who may try to interpret the
content of my little essay as possessing
"hidden" meanings - or that I really meant to
say this, or that, yadda, yadda, yadda. It was
intentional on my part to remain neutral. Often
there is no right or wrong answer. There are
only actions and the consequences of those
actions. It's best to make them those actions count.
I take it straight. I don't see any "hidden
meanings." However, that does not mean that there
is no right or wrong answer. To examine that,
we'd first need to ask what the question is!
