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]

Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

I could walk out on my porch every morning and declare it was going to be a beautiful clear day. I would be right around 3 out of 4 times - but not 100%. I don't think that proves I have much insight into meteorology.

Professional meteorologists, on the other hand, have a much better than chance ability to forecast - but still not 100%. I would not call what they do pseudoscience - I would characterize my forecasts as "not rising out of the noise" because even though they are accurate an amazing 75% of the time, they are no better than chance.

I am suprised Ludwig has not chimed in on this. He has more insight into this than the rest of us because he has made a serious attempt to research this and probably has a good grasp of the current literature.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of M. Horton [scitch@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:09 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

No, "not rising above the noise" means that the effect is so small that it
cannot be differentiated from noise. That is not the case at all, not even
close. "Not 100 percent reproducible" means that it is not 100 percent
reproducible. Maybe we have different definitions of rising above the
noise, but I think that mine makes sense and is the commonly accepted
translation.

I don't take it as an insult. I have no stake in it either way. The only
time I normally jump in on these conversations is when somebody says
something that is wrong and I have information otherwise. I think that this
was one of those cases. But it could be a misunderstanding.

Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS


You seem to take it as an insult that I would say that "the serious
investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the noise" and
then you go on to say how the results are not reproducable "100% of the
time". I would characterize that as not rising out of the noise.

There are good parallels between the so called "global warming scandal"
and the initial cold fusion debacle. In both cases the people who had been
accused of "cooking" data were "exonerated" by the universities that
derived income from their endeavors. That's why I find it amusing when
people sanctimoniously say that one side of an issue has been bought off
by big ___________, but project the image that the other side has been
doing "pure" untainted research guided only by a desire to serve mankind.

Bob at PC


________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of M. Horton
[scitch@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:01 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

"the serious investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the
noise."

That is incorrect. Google Pamela Mosier-Boss, for example. She's one
very
serious investigator (Space and Naval Warfare Center, San Diego) who has
found an effect that rises out of the noise. Then read one of her papers
and go to the references section that lists dozens of others who have
found
similar effects with different protocols. Add to the list of serious
investigators NASA and the Department of Energy too. Pamela has had
numerous papers published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals (i.e.
Journal
of Electroanalytical Chemistry. You can also try Melvin Miles. He's been
a
scientist at Brookhaven National lab and the Naval Weapons Center at China
Lake.

It is true that presently nobody can explain exactly how it happens and it
does not work 100% of the time. But the statement above is not correct
and
is insulting to many electrochemists who are "serious investigators." The
Department of Energy concluded that while there was an effect, it was too
small to be useful as an energy source yet.

You'd be hard-pressed to find an electrochemist who has spent more than 5
years researching the subject who has NOT observed an effect.

My son replicated Dr. Oriani's protocol last year for the science fair and
got negative results. This year he'll be replicating Dr. Boss's
co-deposition protocol and we'll see how it goes. We visited her lab last
year and got to meet another "serious investigator" while we were there,
Dr.
Stan Szpak too.

Just search for "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," "Chemically Assisted
Nuclear
Reactions," or "Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions" to get a list of
research in this area.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS


Actually, one of the often used criteria for pseudoscience is "refusal to
revise in light of valid criticism". I would refer people to Radner and
Radner: Science and Pseudoscience.

As for cold fusion, there are cranks and there are people seriously
trying
to see if an effect exists. It has its share of scientists and
pseudoscientists. Personally, I would not put up money to invest in it -
the serious investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the
noise. Creationism, on the other hand, meets so many criteria one can
confidently call it pseudoscience.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
[clement@hal-pc.org]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 6:17 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS


In some ways the snarky definition is correct! Try to reason with
someone
who believes in young Earth Creationism! Using the term pseudoscience is
not helpful there because nothing will convince them. So while I would
tend
to use pseudoscience according to the more limited definition, the actual
definition as used by the majority may be quite different. Is cold
fusion
pseudoscience?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5513 (20101007) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5513 (20101007) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5513 (20101007) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5525 (20101012) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l