Re: Dissident science.

[harvey.picker@mail.cc.trincoll.edu (Harvey Picker)]

> > The real problem is with
> > "science zenophobia".  Identical negative sentiments have been expressed
> > against Cold Fusion in major science publications in the past.  Cold
> > Fusion is not being researched, but NOT because it doesn't work.  The real
> > reason is demonstrated by the hostile response.
> >
> > It is one thing if an effect is researched and found not to exist.  But it
> > is quite different if the majority of scientists have a nasty emotional
> > reaction (in my experience they do.)  Then there is no question that the
> > whole topic is a taboo realm of physics.  If a science journal dares to
> > publish a positive "cold fusion" paper, it will receive thousands of
> > hostile letters, therefor we see no research papers in the mainstream
> > press.  It doesn't matter if the effects are real or not.  It doesn't
> > matter if an an Arthur C. Clarke (or even an Einstein or a Feynman) tries
> > to set the record straight about a subject which has become "taboo", any
> > attempts to do so will simply turn their supporters against them.  Look at
> > Brian Josephson and his support of parapsychology, or Linus Pauling and
> > his Vitamin-C, both of them damaged their reputations by supporting some
> > highly "taboo" areas of science, regardless of their Nobelist status.
>
> If my memory serves me correctly, there was GREAT interest in the science
> community when the Cold Fusion results were first announced. There
> certainly was skepticism as well, mainly because of the non-traditional
> method of announcement. But there were MANY physics departments who jumped
> on the chance to verify the effect. It was (and still IS) a cheap, easy
> experiment to set up and run. The only danger seems to be to avoid igniting
> the H2 and O2 that are produced by electrolysis. No neutron radiation has
> been confirmed (which is also a source of skepticism). Since the experiment
> HAS been repeatedly tried and found to not exist IS valid reason for
> skepticism.
>
> Locally, I was aware of experiments done here at Duke as well as a few
> groups in Georgia.
>
> It's no accident that stressed          Chuck Britton
> spelled backwards is desserts.          britton@odie.ncssm.edu


It might be worth noting that at the time of the Pons-Fleischmann
announcement, AT&T owned a substantial fraction of the world supply of
palladium.  There was, therefore, intense interest in the cold-fusion
claims at Bell Labs, where a former student of mine was a member of the
technical staff.  He told me about weekly informal seminars in the first
few months after the announcement.  I think that the fact that neither
terrorist countries nor large corporations have managed to capitalize on
this wonderful supposed source of energy speaks for itself.  Large
corporations, in particular, don't seem to worry about being embarassed,
either directly or by association.  Remember Intel's response to the
discovery of the Pentium floating-point division bug?

Reputations are (very nearly) irrelevant.   Someone can be brilliant in one
area and blindly foolish in many others.  If Pauling's vitamin C quackery
isn't enough to illustrate this, how about Shockley's pathetic "research"
on IQ and race?  My experience has been that the physics community is
generally quite skeptical and eager to verify or refute startling claims
(like the 17-KeV neutrino).  Julian Schwinger appeared to think that there
might be something to cold fusion, too.  So what?

***********************************************************************
Harvey Picker           *      e-mail:  harvey.picker@mail.trincoll.edu
Physics Department      *      phone: (860)297-2299
Trinity College         *      fax:   (860)987-6239
Hartford, CT 06106      *
USA                     *
***********************************************************************