Again, hardly an attack on the strongest of the arguments of the opposing proposition.
Please, let's have some intellectual honesty for a change. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab > anywhere that has a single running cold fusion genre experiment that > produces verifiable anomalies? With global exponential evolution in all > fields concurrent with the Net... > > I like that Widom and Larsen vividly discuss a huge spectrum of anomalies > -- any current running examples? > > I'm also very willing to be astonished... > > within the fellowship of service, Rich > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:41 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know whether to thank you for providing emotional comfort for my >> working hypothesis that cold fusion's excess heat is a real effect, or >> whether to curse you for providing such a poor excuse for skepticism that >> it will lead guys like me to become lax in our genuine skepticism. >> >> Going off like this on a single editorial of a single guy -- actually a >> relatively inconsequential guy when all is said and done -- like Haglestein >> is pretty far from attacking the strongest argument of the opposing >> proposition. Stuff like this reminds me of the bad effects of playing an >> inferior chess or tennis player. I guess I'll stick with cursing you. >> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > > >> The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the >>> incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has >>> wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends >>> a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and >>> theory and destroyed careers and suppression but scarcely raises the issue >>> of the *quality* of the evidence. That's cold fusion's problem: the quality >>> of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, >>> alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy and a dozen other pathological sciences. >>> And an extraordinary claim *does* require excellent evidence. By not >>> facing this issue, and simply ploughing ahead as if the evidence is as good >>> as the Wright brothers' Paris flight in 1908, he loses the confidence of >>> all but true believers that he is being completely honest and forthright. >>> >>> >>> *1. On consensus* >>> >>> >>> Hagelstein starts out with the science-by-consensus straw man, >>> suggesting that consensus "was used in connection with the question of the >>> existence of an excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment." >>> >>> >>> Please! No one with any familiarity with the history of science thinks >>> consensus defines truth (which I think is what he's suggesting scientists >>> believe). If it did, the ptolemaic solar system would still be taught in >>> school, and time would still be absolute. Individual qualified scientists >>> sufficiently motivated to inspect the evidence make judgements based on >>> that evidence, and, since the modern physics revolution, avoid absolute >>> certainty, their judgements representing varying degrees of certainty. >>> >>> >>> Of course, consensus judgements do form, and are considered by those >>> unqualified or unmotivated to examine the evidence to get some idea of the >>> validity of a phenomenon or theory. While consensus does not define truth, >>> a consensus of experts is the most likely approximation to the truth. And >>> the stronger the consensus, the more confidence it warrants. Sometimes the >>> consensus can be very strong, as in the current consensus that the solar >>> system is Copernican. I have not made the astronomical measurements to >>> prove that it is, although my observations are certainly consistent with >>> it, but my confidence in the description comes from the unanimous consensus >>> among those who have made or analyzed the necessary measurements. Likewise, >>> confidence in the shape of the earth is essentially absolute, and serious >>> humans dismiss members of the flat-earth society as deluded, or more likely >>> dishonest. >>> >>> >>> So, when it comes to allocating funding, hiring or promoting, or >>> awarding prizes or honors, there's really no option but to consult experts >>> in the respective field -- essentially to rely on the consensus. It's the >>> worst system except for all the others. >>> >>> >>> Hagelstein claims that cold fusion is an example of the Semmelweis >>> reflex, in which an idea is rejected because it falls outside the existing >>> consensus. That reflex is named after the rejection of Semmelweis's >>> (correct) hand-washing theory in 1847, which Hagelstein cites. Then he goes >>> on to mock a scientific system in which ideas outside the consensus are >>> rejected and the people who propose them are ostracized in a ridiculous >>> parody that bears no resemblance at all to the actual practice of science. >>> It's the usual way true believers rationalize the rejection of their >>> favorite fringe science. But it's truly surprising to see that Hagelstein >>> has no more awareness of the reality of science than the many cold fusion >>> groupies who populate the internet forums. Of course there is a certain >>> inertia in science, and that is probably not a bad thing, even if it >>> sometimes has negative consequences, but there's so much wrong about the >>> way the phenomenon is applied here: >>> >>> >>> i) Hagelstein fails to mention that in 1989 the announcement of P&F was >>> greeted with widespread enthusiasm and optimism both inside and outside the >>> scientific mainstream; that Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of >>> scientists at an ACS meeting; that scientists all over the world ran to >>> their labs to try to reproduce the effect to get in on the new and >>> fantastic revolution; that eventual uber-skeptic Douglas Morrison was >>> breathlessly optimistic writing: " I feel this subject will become so >>> important to society […] the present big power companies will be running >>> down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium >>> separation plants…" and so on. In fact, people took great pleasure in the >>> idea that a couple of chemists could so revolutionize science. Semmelweis >>> received no such reaction. Cold fusion was an example of the >>> anti-semmelweis reflex, where people delight in bucking the system. It >>> wasn't until people started doing experiments and examining the evidence of >>> others that skepticism began to dominate. >>> >>> >>> ii) In spite of inertia in science, the most revolutionary ideas in >>> physics were accepted immediately. Einstein's photons and Bohr's discrete >>> atomic levels and deBroglie's particle waves were all embraced, because >>> they fit the data. The most celebrated and honored scientists are the ones >>> who revolutionize thought, in direct contradiction to the claims of >>> Hagelstein. For example, he writes "If one decides to focus on a question >>> in this context that is outside of the body of questions of interest to the >>> scientific community, then one must understand that this will lead to an >>> exclusion from the scientific community. " So were Einstein, Bohr, and >>> deBroglie excluded from the scientific community? No, they were all given >>> Nobel prizes. Some exclusion! >>> >>> >>> Now, he might argue that that's ancient history, and the problems he's >>> talking about are recent. In fact he writes: "There are no examples of any >>> researcher fighting for an area outside of science and winning in modern >>> times." I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say here. *His* example was >>> from 160 years ago, and that was egregious, but is he now saying it doesn't >>> happen any more? Isn't that a good thing? >>> >>> >>> There are certainly still examples of results that fall outside the >>> current consensus. Things like dark energy and the accelerating expansion >>> of the universe, for example. This was completely contrary to expectations, >>> but was accepted rather quickly, so to that extent Hagelstein is right; >>> they did not have to fight for the area. It resulted in a Nobel prize in >>> 2011, and here's what Perlmutter said in his Nobel speech: "Perhaps the >>> only thing better for a scientist than finding the crucial piece of a >>> puzzle that completes a picture is finding a piece that doesn't fit at all, >>> and tells us that there is a whole new part of the puzzle that we haven't >>> even imagined yet and the scene in the puzzle is bigger, richer than we >>> ever thought." Science celebrates innovation and discovery; it does not >>> suppress it. >>> >>> >>> There are other examples like high temperature superconductivity, also >>> unexpected and unexplained but accepted immediately, and also resulting in >>> a Nobel prize (in record time). >>> >>> >>> There is also the discovery of quasicrystals by Dan Shechtman. This >>> discovery actually did meet considerable resistance, and required Shechtman >>> to fight for his area. Pauling said there are no quasi-crystals, only >>> qausi-scientists. But it was not like cold fusion in that his results from >>> the beginning were published in the best journals, and he began winning >>> awards for the work only a few years after the discovery, and in 2011 he >>> was also given the Nobel prize. >>> >>> >>> There is also the example of the faster than light neutrinos. Most >>> physicists were skeptical, but the idea was certainly given a hearing: >>> Here's a scientist quoted in a recent report in the Washington Post: “The >>> theorists are now knotted up with conflicting emotions. As much as they >>> support Einstein, they’d also love for the new finding to be true. It’d be >>> weirdly thrilling. They’d get to rethink everything. If neutrinos violate >>> the officially posted cosmic speed limit, the result will be the Full >>> Employment Act for Physicists.” >>> >>> >>> So, it's nonsense to suggest that working outside the current consensus >>> leads to exclusion. (It can, of course, if the area really has no merit.) >>> Scientists crave revolutionary and disruptive results. It's very clear that >>> honor, fame, glory, and funding come to those who make major discoveries. >>> Not those who add decimal points. The most famous scientists are those who >>> revolutionized fields. The buzz words in grant proposals are "new physics" >>> or "physics beyond the standard model". And that's why the world (the >>> scientific world) went briefly nuts in 1989. Everyone wanted to be part of >>> the revolution; no one wanted to be left behind. >>> >>> >>> And the fact that Hagelstein had to go back 160 years for a really >>> egregious case of suppression is an indication that things have improved. >>> And even in that case, Semmelweis's ideas were vindicated in about 20 >>> years, although it was too late for him. I'm not aware of a modern example >>> of a bench-top (small-scale) phenomenon that was rejected by the mainstream >>> for decades, that proved to be right. And cold fusion is very unlikely to >>> change that situation. >>> >>> >>> *2) quality of the evidence* >>> >>> >>> As already mentioned, Hagelstein hardly considers the quality of the >>> evidence. However, when he wrote "The current view within the scientific >>> community is that these fields [nuclear physics and condensed matter >>> physics] have things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in >>> the lab, then the problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view >>> prevailed in 1989…" he admits that the evidence was, at least at the >>> beginning easy to dismiss. (What he ignores here, as he did earlier in the >>> paper, is that at first, most (or at least much) of mainstream science >>> *did* accept their claims and started to look for ways to modify known >>> theories.) >>> >>> >>> But then, in the next sentence, he suggests the quality of evidence has >>> improved without giving any specific reason to think so: "Such a view >>> prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in >>> cold fusion labs is much clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very >>> big effect; it is reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate >>> energetic products; there are many replications; and there are other >>> anomalies as well." >>> >>> >>> It's difficult to imagine a more vague testimony in cold fusion's favor. >>> Is there any year in the 90s that that could not have been written (or that >>> some form of it wasn't)? It as much as admits the opposite of what he >>> claims: the situation in cold fusion labs is no clearer now than it ever >>> has been. And a little later in the paper, he admits that explicitly when >>> he says: "aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very >>> little that our community agrees on". >>> >>> >>> Hagelstein makes almost no specific reference to experimental evidence, >>> and one example he chooses, if examined, emphasizes its marginal nature. >>> >>> >>> He says that Morrison frequently cited negative results from the KEK >>> group, but then rejected their positive result. But in the latest KEK paper >>> (1998) , one finds: "Since spring of 1989 we have attempted to confirm the >>> so-called cold fusion phenomenon … Until now a burst-like heat release, >>> equivalent to 110% of the input electric power, was observed in one >>> cell…Further studies as well as reproductions of the anomalies are becoming >>> highly essential to understand totally these abnormal phenomena." >>> >>> >>> That's a bit selective, admittedly, since they also claim weak evidence >>> for helium and a very low neutron signal "once", but still, 9 years, and >>> one positive excess heat cell in a burst-like heat release with a COP of >>> 1.1? Is it any wonder, the funding was cancelled? And the authors were >>> equivocal too, writing in the summary: "The heat burst in particular must >>> be reproduced repeatedly to solve the question whether it is nuclear origin >>> or not. It seems Morrison's skepticism was well justified. >>> >>> >>> So, it is not simply the disagreement with established physics that led >>> to the rejection of cold fusion. It was (and is) the low quality of the >>> evidence, which never seems to get better. Hagelstein would do well to face >>> that truth head-on. >>> >>> >>> *3) Career calculus* >>> >>> >>> The end of Hagelstein's essay devolves into a pit of paranoia and >>> self-pity. When he asks "how many careers should be destroyed in order to >>> achieve whatever goal is proposed as justification? " he has gone off the >>> deep end. No one does calculus with anyone's careers. But science is about >>> making judgements, and scientists spend a large fraction of their time >>> exercising their judgement, both to direct their own efforts, and in the >>> service of others as reviewers for journals, hiring and promotion >>> committees, granting agencies, and awards organizations. Great scientists >>> are venerated by other scientists for their accomplishments. It is only >>> fair that their failures, as judged by the same body, count against them. >>> >>> >>> P & F were distinguished scientists precisely because they had impressed >>> mainstream science with their work. When mainstream science rejected their >>> claims, it was (is) incumbent on the mainstream to express that rejection, >>> without regard for the consequences. And anyway, Pons had tenure and >>> Fleischmann was retired. They were as protected from career destruction as >>> they could be. They went to France voluntarily to take advantage of a >>> funding opportunity, so to the extent their careers (or their legacies) >>> were "destroyed", it was their own doing. They opened themselves up to >>> harsh criticism by not only going public, but doing it in a non-scientific, >>> uncharacteristically incautious way. Witness the almost painfully slow and >>> tentative announcements of the Higgs boson or of the FTL neutrinos. P&F >>> threw caution to the wind. They were adamant and they became angry. I think >>> they got what they deserved. >>> >>> >>> What does he expect? That science should pretend to accept claims, even >>> if they don't, in order to preserve the careers of the claimants? >>> >>> >>> Hagelstein's conclusion that science should approve of efforts in cold >>> fusion to see progress in the field, is based on the premise that cold >>> fusion is real. If science rejects the premise, then the conclusion does >>> not follow. >>> >>> >> >
