Cold Fusion - 'Pathological Disbelief'

[Open Mind]

Looks like cold fusion is slowly coming back to life ….perhaps to haunt those who fail to be sceptical of sceptics too.

Read http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf
Written by Brian D Josephson - winner of a Nobel Prize for Physics (1973)

Josephson doesn't seem too popular with Randi or CSICOP possibly for the serious crime of making a telepathy comment on a stamp collection.

Just a few years ago sceptics were saying…..

from www.randi.org

The "cold fusion" farce should have been tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled opponents.

James Randi

VIII European Skeptics Conference
http://www.csicop.org/events/spain.html

Pathological Science

Science, being a human activity, has its own share of fraudulent and irrational incidents. The Piltdown hoax and the cold fusion fiasco are just two examples of pathological science. One would expect that criticism and skepticism are also present in mainstream scientific investigation, but is that the actual case? Is modern science susceptible to deviant behaviors or does it possess appropriate self-correcting mechanisms of defense? Can we learn something from previous cases of pathological science?

It’s not just Josephson getting curious, others like old Arthur C Clarke is too.

The neglect of cold fusion is one of the biggest scandals in the history of science. As I wrote in Profiles of the Future (1962), “With monotonous regularity, apparently competent men have laid down the law about what is technically possible or impossible – and have been proved utterly wrong, sometimes while the ink was scarcely dry from their pens. On careful analysis, it appears that these debacles fall into two classes, which I will call Failures of Nerve and Failures of Imagination.”
In 1989, the cold fusion controversy fitted into the second category, Failures of Imagination, which comes into play when all the available facts are appreciated and marshaled correctly but when the really vital facts are still undiscovered and the possibility of their existence is not even admitted.

Today, the cold fusion controversy falls into the first category, Failures of Nerve; many vital facts have been discovered, yet sceptics lack the courage to acknowledge them or their immense implications.

The Rebirth of Cold Fusion, by Steven B. Krivit and Nadine Winocur, takes a fresh look at this still unresolved debate. An unbiased reader finishing this book will sense that something strange and wonderful is happening at the "fringes" of science. Although hard-core physicists remain fond of intoning “pathological science” like a mantra, I cannot quite believe that hundreds of highly credentialed scientists working at laboratories around the world can all be deluding themselves for years.

Sir Arthur C Clarke

http://www.newenergytimes.com/TRCF/foreword.HTM

Hmm….

 

[apoger]

Looks like cold fusion is slowly coming back to life

Let us know when significant results can be replicated.

 

[jj]

Let us know when significant results can be replicated.

Well, let me know when that magic powder that turns water into gasoline is released from the oil company secret vault, too.

I am not saying that "cold fusion" is utterly impossible, I am saying that the evidence to date is that of error followed by stubbornness.

Such things happen.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

If it proves possible for atoms to fuse without a massive input of energy, it will require the reformulation of large chunks of our theories of atomic bonding. You can appreciate why it therefore needs some very convincing evidence of its existence.

Incidently, we already have a perfectly functioning hot fusion device - and it pumps out more energy that we could possibly need. It's called 'the sun'.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, considering the absolutely grotesque profit potential, I'm sure we'll hear about it soon after anybody makes a brea-through in the form of a repeatable experiment.

About the appeal to the authority of A.C. Clarke. Much as I have enjoyed Mr. Clarke's excellent books, I need to point out two things:

1) He is not a scientist, he is a fiction writer.

2) He is VERY old, and he may not be as up to date on science as he once was.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Is this specifically about Fleischmann/Pons and the catalytic properties of a palladium lattice as regards deuterium -> helium, or is it about a different specific method, or is it a general comment about hypothetical potential mathodologies?

Rolfe.

 

[hgc]

Methinks Open Mind is probably off spamming ... er ... I mean, opening minds at 10 other forums by now.

Poor Clarke. I imagine that on an almost daily basis someone is slipping this kind of bilge under his senile nose for a signature.

And oh, "pathological disbelief" is a nice touch. "If you don't believe this, you're sick!"

 

[Dr Adequate]

And oh, "pathological disbelief" is a nice touch. "If you don't believe this, you're sick!"

Well, it's what all the nuts say, so it must be true. I am "frightened" of aura healing. I was "frightened" of the proposition that taxation is morally equivalent to mugging. I'm "frightened" of the literal truth of Genesis. And now I'm too neurotic to come to terms with the fact that --- tomorrow --- someone's going to invent a new source of energy. Frankly, I'm a little ball of trauma and I don't know why.

I don't suppose Open Mind has any evidence that cold fusion works...? Hello...?

 

[Dragon]

Yup, another drive-by troll, methinks.
Prompted me to find this piece on pathological science by Nicholas J. Turro, though. I think it's rather good. He concludes with this -

Advice for the working revolutionist
Clearly, scientific progress would be impossible if researchers always played it safe within a dominant paradigm, discarding disturbing results or shying away from daring hypotheses. Some of today's most robust discoveries and most promising research subjects--manned space flight, wave-particle duality, C₆₀ (buckminsterfullerene or "buckyball") molecules, high-temperature superconductivity, ad infinitum--once struck mainstream scientific opinion as completely implausible. Working researchers have practical steps they can take to lower the chances that today's "eureka!" will be tomorrow's Ig Nobel:

• Always generate and test several plausible hypotheses to explain a result.
• Use imaginative experimental design to increase objectivities and decrease the chances that the initial observation contains artifacts.
• Let the best available paradigm be your guide, until you're certain that your results require revision of the paradigm.
• Be conservative about the concepts of statistical significance and margin of error, especially when analyzing phenomena on the threshold between signal and noise.
• Reproduce, reproduce, reproduce.
• Discuss surprising findings openly with peers (through both formal and informal channels, inside and outside one's own specialty), and make constructive use of the critiques that arise.
• When discussing research with non-scientists--especially those holding microphones, cameras, notebooks, or checkbooks--avoid the temptations to overinterpret results, oversimplify your explanations, or promise the moon in practical applications.
• If further studies falsify your hypothesis, acknowledge it with grace and learn from the experience. Blind leads are nothing to be ashamed of; they are inseparable from the progress of science. Any number of pathological investigations give way eventually to one like quantum mechanics--which necessitated a few adjustments to the law of conservation of mass but ultimately withstood criticism, explained results that Newtonian theory couldn't explain, and revolutionized physics. The same communal corrective processes that falsified one theory verified the other; that's how science operates and why it almost always works.
• Do the unthinkable: Try your very best to find faults in your experiment or to falsify your interpretation. If this is done fairly, objectively, and passionately, even if you turn out to be wrong, you will be true to your science, and you will be admired by the community for your intellectual courage and dedication to the scientific ethos.

So thanks, Open mind.

Edited for spelin

 

[Hellbound]

Do the unthinkable: Try your very best to find faults in your experiment or to falsify your interpretation. If this is done fairly, objectively, and passionately, even if you turn out to be wrong, you will be true to your science, and you will be admired by the community for your intellectual courage and dedication to the scientific ethos.

And this, my friends, is the core and heart of science. Thus, my sig line

 

[Dragon]

I like the 5th point - sounds more fun.

 

[Grendel]

RE: Appeals to authority...

I've noticed that people who cite Arthur C. Clarke as being in support of a given claim or belief fail to note he also declared that Mars clearly has seasonally advancing and retreating vegetation and needs to be investigated for such.

As a fan of Arthur C. Clarke literature, I choose to believe -admittedly without foundation -that such gaffes are a result of aging.

 

[Open Mind]

Let us know when significant results can be replicated.

It would be a pleasure But till then, if you read page 13 on Professor Josephson's pdf article it seems 10 research groups have reproduced a significant effect. In the last year the ability to reproduce it has gone up by around 40% ...to 83% … .

Well, considering the absolutely grotesque profit potential, I'm sure we'll hear about it soon after anybody makes a brea-through in the form of a repeatable experiment.

Hans, with respect, grotesque profit for some can mean a much greater loss of profit for others. (As cold fusion might possibly lead to cheaper energy, it could also mean lower profits overall)

About the appeal to the authority of A.C. Clarke. Much as I have enjoyed Mr. Clarke's excellent books, I need to point out two things:

1) He is not a scientist, he is a fiction writer.

Which might be why he is willing to stick his neck out, he has nothing to lose. However scientists have their reputation to think off.

Marcello Truzzi

‘There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.’

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

Methinks Open Mind is probably off spamming ... er ... I mean, opening minds at 10 other forums by now.

Very excellent idea, thanks for the suggestion My first choice would be CSICOP forum, can you recommend one? CSICOP’s self appointed duty is to debunk claims that would rewrite science, so I’d prefer they commented upon these growing ‘cold fusion’ claims and in doing so give an interesting claim some publicity.

And oh, "pathological disbelief" is a nice touch. "If you don't believe this, you're sick!"

Yes, I think he was rather witty considering ‘cold fusion’, parapsychology, etc. has been labeled ‘Pathological Science’ meaning ‘if you investigate that, you are sick!’

I don't suppose Open Mind has any evidence that cold fusion works...? Hello...?

Greetings! No. Did I claim any?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Greetings! No. Did I claim any?

Can't say that you did. So what's the point of the thread? Let us know when the darn thing really works, and I'll crack open the bubbly.

 

[CFLarsen]

An unbiased reader finishing this book will sense that something strange and wonderful is happening at the "fringes" of science. Although hard-core physicists remain fond of intoning “pathological science” like a mantra, I cannot quite believe that hundreds of highly credentialed scientists working at laboratories around the world can all be deluding themselves for years.

I, for one, cannot believe that Clarke has made the "Argument from Authority" fallacy. I demand an official verification of this.

E.g., name these "hundreds of highly credentialed scientists working at laboratories around the world" and the labs they work at.

I'll check the references. You bet I will.

So, "Open Mind", please verify this quote. Please list the scientists and the labs they work at.

Any - and I repeat: any - delays, obfuscations, or evasions, will result in a complete dismissal of your claim.

 

[hgc]

...

Very excellent idea, thanks for the suggestion My first choice would be CSICOP forum, can you recommend one? CSICOP’s self appointed duty is to debunk claims that would rewrite science, so I’d prefer they commented upon these growing ‘cold fusion’ claims and in doing so give an interesting claim some publicity.

Sure. How about IIDB and Straight Dope. There are others, I'm sure, but I don't get around much. Good luck, though look out for the sickos.

Yes, I think he was rather witty considering ‘cold fusion’, parapsychology, etc. has been labeled ‘Pathological Science’ meaning ‘if you investigate that, you are sick!’

The term "pathological science" doesn't refer to people, but rather to the process. Within the context of science, it's considered to be broken.

For instance, if a scientific process produces startling results which contradict all that is currently known, and which the scientists, working outside their field if expertise, announce at a splashy press conference before any other scientists can attempt to replicate the results, and then said scientists keep promising but failing to deliver basic data about their experiment, and then many scientists suggest what experimental mistakes could have led to the initial conclusion, and then the original scientists keep insisting the truth of their claims even though neither they nor anyone else has reproduced the results... that's pathological science. But Pons and Fleishman, who did all this, are not sick, that I know of.

 

[Grendel]

Am I the only person who tires of this silly notion of 'truth by democracy', that if enough people believe a given claim, their numbers alone lend it credence or even proof, that X number of people, scientists or otherwise, cannot be wrong?*

If this equation is true and worthy, where exactly is the cut-off? How many people of the same belief are required for it to all of sudden, on that number, assume credence? Fifty? A thousand? two thousand four hundred and thirty seven? Would scientists count as two votes, message board claim mongerers as one half of a vote?**

It's all about the evidence, The Evidence, THE EVIDENCE. One plumber's assistant with the true goods trumps a thousand scientists or bleevers who believed otherwise. The Evidence.

Got any?***











*Rhetorical question.

**More sarcasm than rhetorical question.

***Pure smartass now.

 

[Open Mind]

I'll check the references. You bet I will.

If you want, please do.

So, "Open Mind", please verify this quote. Please list the scientists and the labs they work at.

Sorry I do not know Arthur C Clarke, I do not know the authors of the book, neither do I know Professor Brian D Josephson, nor can I give you the information by remote viewing, as I’m not psychic CSICOP generally pounces on such claims, so now would be good time for them to check it out, that is their purpose surely? ‘Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Psychologist’ …oops I’m mean ‘Paranormal’.

Any - and I repeat: any - delays, obfuscations, or evasions, will result in a complete dismissal of your claim. [/B]

But I made no claim. I just gave internet links. I admit I like the idea of cold fusion, who wouldn’t?

Correct me if I’m wrong but I assumed the purpose of a forum was to have good natured, lively debate? Did I do something wrong?

 

[Zombified]

But I made no claim. I just gave internet links. I admit I like the idea of cold fusion, who wouldn’t?

Economical desktop fusion? Really, who wouldn't love it? I sure would. In fact, when it was first announced and before the first rumblings of doubt set in, I was very excited by the idea. But it just didn't work out. It wasn't reproducible. It wasn't malicious: after the announcement P&F did there was no getting the cat, if there was one, back in the bag, no matter how much evil oil companies would want to suppress it.

But all the evidence is that it doesn't work. So at this point, if you want to make a positive claim about cold fusion, you have to expect a fair amount of skepticism, and be prepared to follow up with some real evidence.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I assumed the purpose of a forum was to have good natured, lively debate? Did I do something wrong?

That's not necessarily the purpose, and frankly, its a well-travelled internet forum, so you're going to find at least 2 of just about everything. Did you really expect to post something controversial and not get challenged?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Actually, a lot of people wouldn't like cold fusion, starting with ecologists who would see it as another (large) nail in the Earth's heat budget coffin.

Oil companies would probably be less concerned. Oil is used for lots of things besides fuel and oil companies are mostly energy companies too.

I remain sceptical about low energy fusion on the simplistic grounds that it does not appear to happen in nature as one might expect it would, were it possible at all.