| 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] |
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
Ludwik Kowalski wrote:...
>
> Excitement caused by Ponn and Flishmann had a positive
> effect on many minds;
Huh? The cost/benefit ratio was horrific.
> it triggered a debate,
Scandals commonly trigger debates. That's hardly
enough to qualify them as "positive".
> As teachers we should look for such episodes
> and make them known to students, when possible.
When challenging the "laws" of physics there's a right
way and a wrong way to go about it. (The same applies
to any other activity.)
A1) The rules need changing, and the scientific...
community handles it well.
A2) The rules don't need changing, and it is handled...
well. Example: The null results of Eötvös.
B1) The rules need changing, and it is handled poorly.
...
B2) The rules don't need changing, and it is handled
poorly. Examples: N-rays, cold fusion.
And there is a fifth class, where the scientific community
responds scientifically but fails to bring the broader
society along. Examples: copper bracelet therapy, magnetic
bracelet therapy, homeopathic medicines.
The task of challenging established ideas is not assigned
only to giants like Michelson and Rumford and Rutherford,
but also to every worker-bee in the scientific community.
To summarize:
-- Primarily we should discuss the right way to challenge
the established rules. And the necessity for doing so.
-- Secondarily we should discuss N-rays, cold fusion,
homeopathy, etc. as counterexamples, as perversions.
We shouldn't call them "positive".