At 10:13 AM 3/29/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There are two other documents listing arguments --
1. My list of skeptical arguments here:
<http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html>http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
This is short but comprehensive. I do not know of any major
arguments not included.
2. In the unpublished paper by Melich and me about the 2004 DoE
review: "Table 2. Summary of common errors made by review panel
members." If I could get Melich to finish this I would upload it.
Anyway, I title this a table of "errors" whereas a skeptic would
call it "valid arguments." Whatever you call it, I found 14 major
skeptical arguments in comments made by DoE panelists that I
disagree with. I described the 14 arguments and then made Table 2
showing who make what error. Some of the reviewers did not make any
of these errors, and some made only a few minor ones. I cannot
upload the table here because of formatting limitations. The errors are:
1. Theoretical objections to experimentally proven facts are a
violation of the scientific method
2. A result need not be explained theoretically before it can be believed
3. A reviewer's inability to imagine or understand a result is not a
valid reason to reject it
4. Cold fusion is an experimental finding, so you cannot disprove it
by showing errors in theories that attempt to explain it
5. Undiscovered error hypothesis
6. Chemical storage hypothesis
7. Artifactual low-level heat hypothesis
8. Recombination hypothesis
9. The nuclear hypothesis best fits the facts
10. Data from newly discovered phenomena often seems inconsistent
11. Difficulty with experiments, irreproducibility and erratic
performance are not grounds to disbelieve a result
12. Researchers have made great efforts to find systematic errors
and conventional explanations
13. Underfunded research cannot be expected to produce elaborate and
expensive results
14. Skeptics have published few papers
In an examination of arguments, all arguments should be presented in
such a way that those who believe the argument would say, "Yes,
that's what we believe." Any discussion that doesn't do this will be
recognized by a neutral observer as polemic and not to be trusted.
To reach a reachable skeptic, the discussion must show that the
argument is thoroughly understood, and whatever is normally right, or
even occasionally right, about it, is shown, before showing where
assumptions don't hold here, are misapplied, etc. The skeptic can be
disarmed, if it's possible, by seeing all his or her arguments laid
out in clarity. Fanatics can't do this, so by doing it, we would be
undermining that whole layer of confusion.
You are quite correct in what I see often from you, for many
skeptics. Some are unreachable, and they are likely to go to their
graves mumbling "pseudoscience." But others will, in fact, move with
the rest of society, because humans are social animals. As long as
these moveable skeptics believe that "all informed scientists reject
cold fusion," they will stick to their position. Undermining that,
and clearly, is part of the task.
Understand that I believe that, if I'm wrong about cold fusion, I
will fail in these efforts, and should fail. I do trust this process,
in the end. We saw a glitch, a rather bad one.
