Re: COLD FUSION

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

On Monday, Dec 23, 2002, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> The titles of these two recent books are revealing.
>
> C. Beaudette,
> "Excess Heat. Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed."
>           Concord, NH, 2000.
> R.L. Park
> "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud,"
>            Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
>
> One reviewer wrote:
> 'Professor Park does more than debunk, he crucifies...
> You'll never again waste time or your money on astrologers,
> 'quantum healers', homeopaths, spoonbenders, perpetual
> motion merchants, or alien-abduction fantasists.'
>
> But isn't "cold fusion" different from the above?  I do not
> exclude a possibility that some "cold fusion" claims may
> have been made by fraudulent people; con artists are
> naturally attracted toward scientific controversies. But most
> of those who do research in the AE area ("anomalous
> energy" is a better term than "cold fusion') are likely to be
> honest. In fact, I suspect that Fleischman and Pons
> might become Nobel laureates.

What makes the AE area different from voodoo science?

1) Large number (several hundred) cooperating scientists
     in about 10 countries are actively involved.
2) High credentials of these scientists; two Nobel laureates
     (Teller and Schwinger) were trying to produce theories
     of AE at one time.  Did they give up? I do not know.
3)  Nearly all of the AE researchers have doctorates; many
     of them are (or were) associated with highly prestigious
     laboratories and universities. Many of them, including
     Fleischmann,  were recognized leaders of disciplines.
4) They organize one international conference each year
     and make results of their findings known to all who are
     interested.
5) Their methodology of validation is not different from
     that practiced by so-called "mainstream" scientists.
     They experiment, they hypothesize, they change their
     minds, they try to construct theories, they publish.
6) They are not secretive; they want to be heard and be
     criticized scientifically.
7) They want to have access to all mainstream journals
     in order to benefit from the peer-review process.
8) They want their proposals to be fairly evaluated by
     NSF, DOE and other granting agencies.
9) They are highly unhappy about the  "excommunication"
     of the entire field caused by "heretical" mistakes made
     by those who announced the discovery in 1989.

Can somebody produce a list of arguments showing
that claims of AE are not very different from those made
by astrologers, quantum healers, homeopaths, perpetual
motion merchants,  spoonbenders, or alien-abduction
fantasists?