"Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon
attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For
example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc."
There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently
disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect
changes in perception:
"Global warming" to "climate change"?
"Pro-choice" to "women's health"?
"Gay marriage" to "marriage equality"?
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:46:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
I regard efforts to change the name "cold fusion" as attempts to create a
euphemism. Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word
soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For
example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc.
Here is what I wrote about this, in my review of Beaudette's book:
Beaudette thinks the early history of cold fusion soured the field and shaped
events. He regrets the cold fusion got off on the wrong foot with the
University of Utah press conference. He thinks the name "cold fusion" is a
misnomer which has confused the issue. Storms and others have coined new names
like LENR partly to escape from the stigma of the original one. A new name
would be a euphemism. The stigma associated with the original word will soon
attach to the new one. The 1989 introduction could have been done with more
finesse, but I doubt it would have made much difference. Beaudette knows that
some level of controversy was unavoidable: "Revolutions . . . always hit hard
and they hurt. The notion that somehow -- if only things were handled better --
the deep divisions could have been avoided is not a realistic sentiment."
Beaudette does not discuss what I consider the key factor in generating and
prolonging the conflict: money. I did not think this originally, but Szpak,
Hagelstein and others with long experience in academic science convinced me
that is the key issue. The only issue, really. Scientists are not opposed to
new ideas any more than programmers or restaurant owners are. The only thing
they care about is how the new idea affects their pocketbook.
People often say that scientists are conservative and they oppose ideas that
appear to violate theory. As far as I can tell, the only people who get upset
about a theory are those who specialize in that particular theory. The others
do not care. When you ask a scientist about a theory in some other branch he
likely to say 'that is a bunch of ad hoc guesses cobbled together, and you
can't take theory seriously anyway.' Asked about his own theory and he will
tell you it is unquestionably true.
Anyway, if you come up with a few million dollars in grant money, 99% of
scientists will instantly throw away whatever beliefs and theories they
subscribe to, and rally around whatever cockamamie research topic you have come
up with. When cold fusion was first announced, Tom Passell of EPRI says that
many scientists publicly denounced it, while in private they were frantically
applying to EPRI for research grants to study it. They did not actually oppose
it. Probably they had no strong feeling either way. There were only denouncing
it to keep others from applying for a grant. It was a ploy.
In my experience, academic scientists tend to be unethical, backbiting
scoundrels, like stockbrokers. They claim they are held accountable by
peer-review and so on but that is not true. They can make gross errors and no
one catches them or even cares. Plagiarism is endemic. Peer review and funding
mechanisms would be considered a gross violation of antitrust laws in any other
line of work. Imagine how things would be if you let IBM decide what products a
startup company will be allowed to develop! Academic institutions and practices
encourage irresponsibility and reward bad actors. People such as farmers and
programmers have to produce real world results. That tends to keep them more
honest.
It is no wonder science has been stagnating for decades, as Chris Tinsley
pointed out.
- Jed
