Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:

> PF's work, if shown to be true, would require a great deal of new
> physics. This was an additional objection to the early result. Even
> if the there was agreement that there is excess energy created (and
> there is still not agreement), any acceptance would still take a long
> time, as the community generally requests an explanation before
> taking it seriously.

This is exactly the problem!  If theory says that this strange sort of
"fusion" is impossible, then it becomes clear that the evidence MUST be
faulty.  The evidence is not taken seriously.

Theory defeats evidence.

In science, if I present evidence that goes against theory, where is it
written that you may dismiss my evidence out of hand, on the grounds that
I did not supply a theoretical explanation?  Science advances in part
because of the observation of anomalies.  Do we dismiss evidence of
anomalies on the grounds that theory does not predict their existence?
It seems to me that this is exactly what is happening in Cold Fusion
research.

If the perihelion of mercury advances, but this is not predicted by
Newtonian Dynamics, then we should refuse to accept the evidence until
Einstein finally supplies an explanation?  Of course not, but in that case
the observed evidence was irrefutable.  But if the evidence is slightly
weaker, or if the physicists should become convinced that all astronomers
are deluded and prone to hallucinations, then theory can easily defeat
evidence by causing "rational" researchers to assume that there must be
some sort of alternate explanation besides the possibility that the
evidence is genuine.  We can assume that all the contemporary Cold Fusion
workers are obviously victims of delusion and wishful thinking, and as
long as we can avoid "looking into their telescopes", our convictions
stand firm that they are far more gullible/deluded than we ourselves.

But what if we are wrong?  What if our refusal to read contemporary CF
papers is equivalent to refusing to look into Galileo's telescope?  If we
*know* what we will see there, then it would be a waste of time to even
look.  Yet "Galileo" insists that there is a big problem because everyone
is conveniently finding all sorts of "good reasons" not to look!


> I might add that such an explanation does not
> have to be extensive initially. In my experience, peer-reviewed
> plausibility arguments are enough at the start. One of the problems
> with PF was that even the plausibility arguments, from a physics
> standpoint, were weak or non-existent.

Yes.  They could not explain their results.  At present, NOBODY can
explain the heat nor the helium (nor, in the case of Clator at LANL, the
tritium.)  There is absolutely nothing in that Pd lattice that could
conceivably cause the deuterons to approach each other and fuse.  Therefor
all evidence becomes suspect (or even is made to "vanish" by the simple
expedient of Proper Upstanding Physicists deciding that the papers in
question are Crackpottery, and therefor justifying their refusal to read
any of them.)

So, are you going to accuse me of Conspiracy Theorizing some more?
Widespread disbelief does not constitute a "conspiracy".  This is really
unfortunate, because if I was a good crackpot and spouted conspiracy
theories left and right, you would instantly find justification for
dismissing my arguments.  Instead, you try to force the words "conspiracy
theory" into my mouth.  In my opinion, you damage your own position when
you do this.  If I am wrong about CF, you should be able to find some
other way to demonstrate it than by insisting that I keep claiming that
Conspiracies are suppressing research.

Is my tone one of anger?  YOU BET IT IS!!!!!!!

This "conspiracy" thing is not a new problem.  Skeptics have been using
this "illegal tactic" for decades.  The same idiotic tactic is part of the
FAQ for the sci.physics newsgrou.  I even wrote a little paper about it
years ago.  It is attached below.

  http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/arrhenus.html


Refer to the section that begins thus:

   I've encountered another misinterpretation of 'They Laughed At The
   Wright Brothers.' This is from sci.physics FAQ, section 1.7 (7/97).


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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



   THEY LAUGHED AT THE THE WRIGHT BROTHERS!
   - William Beaty

   I keep encountering a particular concept in skeptical writings which I
   think should be addressed. A fairly clear version of this concept is
   here below. I'm not picking on Dr. Bohren in particular, this same
   statement is also made by several other authors. ( And Bohren's book
   is excellent, anyone interested in physics, or in science
   misconceptions should read it! )

   Excerpt from CLOUDS IN A GLASS OF BEER, by Craig F.Bohren (c)1987, J.
   Wiley & Sons, Inc.

     "The story of Arrhenius could be cast in such a way that he was a
     hero and his foot-dragging detractors were villains. I must say,
     however, that I am not opposed to scientific conservatism. Indeed,
     it is necessary (although when faced with it myself I chafe and
     writhe and say bad words.) We forget that many cockeyed ideas that
     were resisted by the savants of the day - the Establishment is the
     pejorative term used - are often shown to have been - cockeyed.
     Every now and then a rare genius turns out to have had a good idea
     despite initial resistance to it. And subsequently, hordes of
     crackpots try to make capital out of this: Arrhenius was ridiculed,
     he was right; I am ridiculed, therefor, I, too, am right. A
     manifestly faulty syllogism, but one widely appealed to
     nevertheless."

   Since I've encountered the above idea more than once, I am beginning
   to wonder if the various arguments and complaints made against
   overly-skeptical behavior are being heard correctly.

   Over and over again the mainstream researchers make the Skeptical
   assertion that, if in view of current knowledge, a new theory or
   observation appears crazy or impossible, therefor it must be crazy or
   impossible, and it can be dismissed out of hand. The unorthodox
   researchers respond fiercely, and end up saying things like "after
   all, they laughed at the Wright Brothers!"

   But wait a minute. Might the skeptics be misinterpreting the response
   of the offbeat researchers? Might the reference to the Wrights be
   heard as meaning "the Wright Brothers were ridiculed but correct. I am
   ridiculed, therefor I am correct as well!" ? But this interpretation
   is wrong. This was mis-heard. It is not what the unorthodox
   researchers are trying to say.

   Their appeal to the Wrights, Arrhenius, Galileo, etc., was meant to
   address an entirely different point: although the crazy ideas usually
   prove to be just that, every so often they do prove to be correct.
   They sometimes even prove to be of immense value. Therefor "crazy"
   ideas must not be automatically dismissed out of hand. It is a very
   bad practice to erect insurmountable barriers against all seemingly
   irrational ideas, because doing so will throw out the occasional
   Galileos and Arrheniuses along with the "hoards of crackpots".

   Some Skeptics would prefer that the apparent crackpots always prove to
   be just that, but the reality is not so simple. If we fight too hard
   to eliminate the "weird" stuff, then we run the risk of suppressing
   the next Copernicus.  There are diamonds hidden in the sewage, and if
   we succeed in keeping Science entirely and totally "clean", then we
   also eliminate the possibility of any major paradigm-changing
   discoveries.

   It is wrong to assert that crackpot ideas are always just what they
   seem. The history of new ideas, including those of Margulis, Gold,
   Weltner, and even the Wrights and Galileo prove this by example. And
   to ignore these powerful examples presented by the "crackpots," and
   instead to see a simple error in their logic, is in itself an error.
   When someone drags out the old "They Laughed at the Wright Brothers"
   argument, that person is simply saying this:

     "You who make a policy of automatically rejecting 'crazy' ideas
     without giving them a fair hearing, would have joined the large
     group who ridiculed the Wright Brothers back in 1905."

   And to the great shame of scientists everwhere, their charge often has
   merit.

     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed;
     Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as
     self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer
     -------------------------------------------------------------------

   I've encountered another misinterpretation of 'They Laughed At The
   Wright Brothers.' This is from sci.physics FAQ, section 1.7 (7/97).
   The "laughing" in this case is at Galileo...

     People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo
     as an example of a great genius being persecuted by the
     establishment for heretical theories. They claim that the
     scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence
     is trying to suppress the truth. This is a classic conspiracy
     theory. The Conspirators are all those scientists who have bothered
     to point out flaws in the claims put forward by the researchers.

   Again the Skeptics are making a (perhaps too convenient)
   misinterpretation, and attempting to justify their quick dismissal of
   the complaints of the unorthodox researchers.

   When an unconventional researcher complains that the scientific peer
   group is attempting to suppress his/her work, we should listen
   carefully to this complaint. Does the researcher actually claim to be
   the target of an organized conspiracy? If not, then our stating
   otherwise is indulging in a "straw man" argument. After all, it makes
   sense that if a non-trivial portion of individual scientists really
   are afraid of being proved wrong, if most scientists really do have
   emotional investment in a current worldview, then some portion of the
   "scientific establishment" really will tend to indulge in suppressive
   acts. No conspiracy is needed, all we require is a collection of
   individuals having common motivation. If the victim of genuine
   suppressive acts makes a complaint, then it would be a great injustice
   to dismiss this complaint as simple paranoia. As the old saying goes,
   you aren't paranoid if a group of people really is out to get you.

   I see the above quoted FAQ entry as being dangerous. It promotes the
   view that anyone who complains of scientific suppression is
   automatically a delusional paranoid, and so we can close our ears and
   ignore their complaints.

   While it's true that large numbers of crackpot researchers really
   exist, and quite of few of these do suffer from delusions of
   persecution, it's also true that suppression exists in science.
   Suppression of dissenting opinion is one way that Science stays on a
   narrow course. Kuhnian paradigm shifts are caused by this suppression.
   If we did not cling to partiular "paradigms" so fiercely, then science
   might progress much more smoothly, rather than requiring periodic
   revolutions.

   When human beings encounter ideas which threaten their fundamental
   worldviews, the typical response is to try to crush the new ideas; to
   eliminate them. Researchers are not immune to this, although the
   historical evidence for it is so embarassing that it is not widely
   acknowledged outside of the Science History/Sociology arenas.
   Professional scientists who pursue unpopular research tend to
   encounter not only disbelief, but also ridicule, loss of funding even
   for their conventional work, attempts to revoke honors, and myriad
   subtle attacks by collegues behind the scenes. (In fact, one common
   attack is exactly as above: "If you think people are attacking you,
   you must have mental problems and therefor need professional help.")

   And so, when someone complains about scientific suppression, we must
   never automatically dismiss them as obviously being paranoid
   conspiracy- theorists. Instead we should take an unbiased view of the
   evidence. Yes, in many cases we will find that the hated "supressors"
   are simply people who are rightly debunking some pseudoscience
   beliefs. But in other cases we will find that the "supressors" are
   scientists whose entire world is threatened by evidence which supports
   the new ideas, and who are individually taking action to silence those
   who bring forth that evidence.

   When someone says "They laughed at Galileo", we must take care not to
   automatically assume paranoia on their part. We should instead hear it
   as a plea to examine their evidence, just as Galileo pleaded with
   contemporaries to actually come and look through that darned
   telescope!





    Created and maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at: billb@eskimo.com.
                 If you are using Lynx, type "c" to email.