Re: Cold Fusion Discussion

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

> > I fear Bill has been watching too many Hollywood 'conspiracy' movies
> > (like every other movie released).  He seems obsessed with Cold Fusion
> > and sees a suppression of 'truth' here.


Illegal (and very common) 'skeptic' ploy.  Demonization of the opponent.

When *you* study physics, it's because you are "fascinated" but when *I*
study cold fusion, it is because I'm "obsessed."  This kind of reasoning
is shameful and offensive, and I have no need to respond nicely when I
meet it.

 "A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an
  inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George




When a maverik researcher complains that near-universal closedmindedness
has removed all possibility of funding or publication, what do their
opponents say? "You must believe in conspiracy theories!  We dismiss you
as a crackpot!"

What?  Who mentioned conspiracy theories?


Read my lips carefully please:

   Near-universal disbelief is adequate to crush any "unwanted"
   research.  No "conspiracies" were ever mentioned.  No "conspiracies"
   are required.


 From a Boston Globe article on the problems caused by peer review:

   In 1970, biologist Margulis was not only denied funding but subjected
   to intense scorn by reviewers at the [National Science] Foundation.
   The theory for which she was denied funding then - that cells evolved
   through a symbiotic union of primitive organisms - has now become
   accepted dogma, cited as fact in recent textbooks.

  "I was flatly turned down," Margulis said, and the grants officers added
  "that I should never apply again."

Marguis was obviously paranoid and delusional.

Why would anyone even bring up the topic of "conspiracies" except as an
unseemly tactic to disparage those who complain about the bad behavior of
their opponents?  "If you think people don't like you, then you must be
delusional and need therapy."  Well, what if people DON'T like you?  Black
people complain of hatred directed at them.  They must believe in
conspiracy theories, and we can dismiss their assertions, and recommend
that they should seek mental help!  Women complain of low wages.  Ah,
ignore them because what they REALLY are saying is that a Dark Conspiracy
of sexist employers is suppressing them, and since no such conspiracy
exists, we've proved that they are paranoid and delusional, and they are
complaining about non-existant suppression, and can be ignored.

It's pure victim-blaming.

In our society, bigots are always looking for justification for their
actions, and looking for ways to silence the complaints of their victims.
One common method is to demonize the victim by hurling accusations of
paranoia.  I realize that it's harsh, but when I see any uncomfortable
idea being refused much chance of investigation, and being crushed by
prejudged disbelief, I lable this situation as "intellectual bigotry."  If
an odd new idea has some merit, yet it conviently becomes a "waste of
funding" or "an embarassment to our journal", then it's effectively
suppressed by prejudice.  When we KNOW that an idea is crackpot, then any
serious investigation would be a waste of time.  (But often only a serious
investigation could ever determine the true situation.)


> > adequate outline of the scientific community's reaction to this work which
> > has been altogether proper.  To me, the overriding reason that CF is NOT
> > getting a raw deal is the fact that it would have ENORMOUS economic
> > potential should it work.


How so?  The phenomenon might not lead to a reactor, as with fusion of
hi-mass nuclei.  It might be demonstrable (with difficulty) in the lab,
but those problems which cause it to behave in so flakey a manner might be
inherent in the physics.

Anyway, if an idea is crushed by prejudice/closedmindedness, and this is
truely the situation, and then if you reason that greed for a new
technology MUST ALWAYS defeat closedmindedness, then you are simply wrong.
If Cold Fusion is real, yet nobody is taking it seriously, then this is
not evidence that there is no possibility of finding a new energy source.
It could just be evidence that closedmindedness is extremely powerful, and
that even greed for cheap and simple energy sources cannot put a big
enough dent in the prejudice to make a difference.


>  To suggest suppression, is to fall for the 'CHAIN
> > REACTION' script--deliberate suppression to protect certain economic
> > interests

So suppression can only be caused by conspiracy?  Hatred against gays and
lesbians is not a matter of individual acts of hatred, but can only exist
because of conspiracy?  Jew-bashing proves that there Antisemitic
Conspiracies are behind things, rather than simply proving that bigotry
exists?

Amazing.  Simply amazing.   I didn't expect to see this type of argument
used on PHYS-L.



((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L