I wander through some religious history. At 10:32 AM 5/31/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In France the importation of printed calicoes is threatening to undermine the clothing industry. It is met with measures which cost the lives of sixteen thousand people! In Valence alone on one occasion 77 persons are sentenced to be hanged, 58 broken on the wheel, 631 sent to the galleys, and one lone and lucky individual set free for the crime of dealing in forbidden calico wares. . . .
Perhaps we should be grateful that all they did or could do was cast some nasty aspersions and effectively cut off research funding and grad student labor. Surely, however, Jed, you can understand why the government acted, it was concerned about the massive economic disruption from this diabolical innovation. Yeah, shortsighted, but ... many governments aren't noted for taking the long view.
In Mecca, the tribal leaders were very concerned that this upstart Muhammad was teaching that the gods, the idols in the ancient temple there, had no power. Realizing that this might destroy the economic foundation of the city, which was incapable of supporting itself merely from meager local resources, and which depended on temple offerings brought from a large area for survival, and even though Muhammad came from a prominent family, they finally had to act, and they attempted to assassinate him. But he realized the danger and fled. It's called "hijra," or "migration," and the Islamic calendar dates from that act. Then, since Muhammad continued his mischief, they attempted to attack and destroy him and his followers at the city that took him in, Yathrib, and they almost succeeded. (Yathib is now known as Medina, short for medinat-an-nabi, the city of the Prophet.)
At one point the Muslims went to Mecca, intending to perform a pilgrimage to that ancient temple. They were met outside Mecca by an army, ready to prevent them from entering. But a truce was negotiated; the Muslims went home, and it was agreed that they could come the next year (and the Meccans evacuated the city temporarily for that), and this is what happened.
But ultimately the truce was violated, we are told (I do always have some suspicion about the history written by victors), and the Muslims returned to Mecca. This time, as they had continued to grow in support from the surrounding tribes, the Meccans simply surrender and nearly all of them accepted Islam or at least stopped fighting it.
When the truce was negotiated, some of the Muslims were upset. Surely, they thought, God was on our side, and we don't care if we die, we'll receive our reward. But the Prophet had a better idea, called "peace." And with peace, they grew in strength and, in the end, resolved it all without major bloodshed. When the truce was negotiated, they might have won, but it would have been a terrible battle, and the Meccans would have been fighting for their homes and families, which does tend to motivate people....
And this is what happened ultimately: Mecca became a pilgrimage center for the entire world, not just the Hijaz, the Arabian peninsula. The fears of the town leaders were understandable, but short-sighted.
I'm reminded of the whole affair today when I see "Muslims" who consider anyone who makes treaties of peace, or who lives in peace, with "non-Muslims" to be apostate, appeasers, or cowards. What do they think about the Prophet, who made peace when he could have fought? And, of course, this is just what's in the Qur'an: "If they ask for peace, make peace, and if they plan a plan (i.e., plan to trick you), know that God is the best of planners."
The government in France was trying to stop the tide. Not a great idea. The particle physicists in 1989 responded with a vehemence that was clearly excessive as to any legitimate scientific skepticism. Some of them, for sure, even made it clear that this was about avoiding wasting money on "pathological science." But, strangely, they didn't seem to object to the hot fusion research that was making them and/or their colleagues secure for the rest of their careers, that poured money into massive research efforts with no real results in sight.
Will some benefit ultimately come from this? I don't know. I do think that the hot fusion research was mostly wasted, compared to what could have been done with that money. Managing stellar temperatures in our human-friendly environment is just too difficult, and, as has often been pointed out, we have a nice hot fusion reactor at a safe distance of 93 million miles. That's the hot fusion we should use, and maybe we'll get something, as well, from cold fusion. I have no special confidence that it can be commercialized, and it was an error, for sure, for the skeptics to cite lack of proven commercial applications as some kind of evidence relating to the science. That was just political polemic.
On the other hand, I do suspect that techniques that can be commercialized will be found and proven. Politically, I'll note, and as I've often written, I agree with the conclusions of the 2004 DoE review, and it's high time that the DoE be reminded of what that review actually recommended. The evidence for cold fusion has gotten stronger, not weaker. I'd recommend that the DoE revisit the topic with more care. The situation is not that cold fusion is in doubt, but merely that to understand that it is not in doubt takes more than a day of talking. The real question is "What's actually happening?" If that can be answered, then engineering the effect to become more reliable and more productive becomes much more possible. And so what's needed most of all, at this point, is basic research, the kind that may best be funded by governments through academic institutions.
Gvoernmental policy should begin to explicitly encourage and appropriately fund this. Massive funding before certain basic questions have been answered is probably inappropriate. But it might only be a short time before enough is known to justify, indeed, as much or more funding than was poured into the radically unsuccessful hot fusion programs.
