| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Some CF-skeptics say "if their research is a success, then they'd hold
press conferences!" Right.
The press-conference style of publishing results was practically
perfected by CF proponents on day 1.
True, but you seem to be changing the subject. We are not talking about
journal publication or pure research, we are talking about commercial CF
concerns like Ceti and Blacklight Power. Commercial companies would be
EXPECTED to do advertizing or to issue press releases.
But this does not release them from the requirement to do good honest
science. At least in the eyes of the investors.
Hmmmm. In your message I think I detect a note of "these disgusting CF
proponents are all the same! Even the commercial companies do science by
press release!" Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope it's just my imagination,
and you aren't falling into hate-think.
You do have an [over-active] imagination. You are wrong.
All throughout the entire CF controversy we find the idea that CF
experiments must be easy to perform. In my opinion, the CF phenomenon was
dismissed on the grounds that it HAD TO BE easy to achive, and when simple
experiments did not exhibit any odd effects, this "proved" that CF did not
exist.
And now who is changing the subject so, to speak? At the start, there
were 3 CF proponents: Pons/Fleischmann (PF), and Jones. The former
barnstormed the world with table-top energy, without considering even
the simplest of questions, theoretical or experimental.
Jones was
just quietly doing science. The idea that CF experiments were easy to
perform was *created* by the grandfathers of the modern CF phenom:
PF, and their grandson, Bockris. Not the detractors! CF has been
hobbled by this ever since, entirely through their own fault. No one
to blame but themselves.
If CF phenomena are very difficult to coax out of the equipment, then
everything changes. In my opinion, the CF disbelievers relied a bit too
much on this idea of "easy CF."
Hah! See above. When disbelievers mentioned this to PF, they were
ridiculed.
In fact, CF *believers* relied too much on the idea of
easy CF.
The very first challenge to PF took place in PF's lab. That
challenger was not sneering, and did *not* believe that CF must be
easy. And he went into it with an open mind. He gave PF ample
opportunity to expand their measurements and create the first
independent ancillary evidence of their effect. When the initial
experiments were negative, PF, in a haze of distrust and YES,
CONSPIRATORIAL PARANOIA, turned down the opportunity to explore it
more. Unfortunately, their fate was then sealed, and what could have
potentially been retrieved from the mire of science by press
conference was forever besmirched. All CF proponents labor under this
cloud, whether serious or crackpot.
I say let them give a Wright Brothers demonstration. When and if it
happens, all the more sweet will be their victory.
The trouble is, it might not happen, ever, and the reason for it could
very well be from the negative effects of widespread disbelief.
Delayed perhaps, but widespread disbelief has no more power to cause
an event to not happen than widespread gullibility has the power to
cause an even to happen.
A "wright
brothers" demo should not be necessary. To convince people that CF is
real, all that should be needed is replications, and collections of
results investigating the details of the phenomenon. We have these, but
conveniently they only exist in those "disreputable" CF journals, and no
upstanding scientist would ever read such despicable trash. (See how it
works?)
I see these words almost exclusively from those who have had their
own work refused for publication. They develop a belief that since
the established community will not listen to them, the established
community is conspiring against them (sorry Bill, but there is simply
no other word to use here).
great deal of communication between those in editorial control of
prestigious physics journals and those close to the fray. Any of
these journals would have given their eye-teeth to be the one to
publish confirmation or simply ancillary evidence. In the end, to do
so would have been to compromise their scientific integrity, period.
Because the result was just too superfluous.
Those journals then
*correctly* backed off from the circus. Refusal to publish hinged on
key questions of science, not of politics. When PF then attempted to
*inject* politics and do science by *lawsuit* (primarily P), they
were properly dismissed. And again, the CF community has suffered.
But they need to look inward for the reasons, not outward.
Those in the fusion community, in the very early days, were in close
contact with the first ones to enter PF's lab to try to do additional
experiments. You can bet they were interested, but there was not much
fear of embarrassment. They wanted to know if it was real, period.
The first response was definitely one of reviewing the evidence and
rejecting the evidence as wanting. PF's reaction to this was a
conspiratorial one, highly unrepresentative of the larger scientific
community.
But despite efforts at spin-control, PF became
uncontrollable, shooting from the hip, and hitting the target about
as often as one would expect.
So, one loud voice was able to discredit years of effort in an entire
country of capable physicists and electrochemists? Sorry, but we must
be skeptical of this.
As for me, yes I am a disbeliever,
but I'm still willing to be convinced. But a "pro-CF" argument sounds
pretty weak to me on the surface unless there is new and shocking
evidence. Why, because the "anti-CF" side is no slouch.
If disbelievers refuse to inspect evidence, and if journals refuse to
publish evidence, then the anti-CF side is in danger of winning, but only
because of unseemly tactics.
If true, the believers will have their day. Why oh why is
<http://www.amasci.com/weird/anode.txt> not inundated with hits from
scientists all over the world, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to get
the obvious demonstration of fact? Serious question!
It is there for
all to see, for the taking. No one is stopping it. It even refers to
a premiere journal in the field. Free for the taking. I ask, if for
example I am a disbeliever, what power do I have to stop the
onslaught of this free knowledge, not to mention energy?
journals. I have known a number of reviewers, even some with
political or personal axes to grind, and have been on the receiving
end of the reviewer's stick a number of times, including rejections.
While there *are* personal and professional biases that exist, in
physics journals anyway there are many self-correcting mechanisms
which do work,
and in 20 years of industrial and/or academic work,
I've never met any serious professional who would buy your argument,
short of those who frankly blame their problems on conspiracy, most
of them using that exact word.
A target of conspiracy, imagined or
real, will simply never believe that his arguments are demonstrably
flawed scientifically.
I realize that you cannot be convinced
otherwise, so I, like Mr. Tarara, will shortly conclude my
contribution.
Or...
:)
...perhaps CF truely is bogus, and the outcast status of the "CF research
community" is entirely proper. I myself look at the evidence and decide
that CF has about a 95% chance of being real. Does that make me a
"believer"? Of course not. A "believer" believes, and evidence be
damned. Just as disbelievers disbelieve, and evidence be damned.
To paraphrase, I myself look at the evidence and decide that CF has
about a 5% chance (or less) of being real.
As it did then, the community will ultimately decide the validity,
interim and final.
Truely. And those who have purposefully impeded
the advance of science on both sides of the question will ultimately
have their come-uppance. PF have already *rightly* had their
come-uppance. Others have followed. Others will follow. And the rest
will survive with reputations validated or revived.