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: Cold Fusion Discussion



While I originally had no intention of insulting Mr. Beaty (thinking my
statements to be couched in a language that clearly indicated their
'playful' nature), I must NOW take offense at his insinuations of bigotry
and hatred on my part. Let's look at who has been doing what on this list:

Who has waged a two month PERSONAL attack on John Denker--on both his grasp
of Physics and his professional and ethical behavior?

Who has been bad-mouthing the Physics and Science communities for:

a) Not studying certain topics (like 'religious phenomena') in a serious
way (from his perspective).

b) For not vigorously supporting research in areas like Cold Fusion, long
after there has been quite sufficient work to indicate the phenomena is
unlikely to be technologically important even if ever confirmed as 'real'.

c) For harboring individuals who did not have enough foresight to
understand the potential of such things as the Wright Brothers early work.

Who has been citing a bunch of anecdotes to support his ideas of suppression
of scientific ideas (take the very recent reply to Chuck Britton as an
example) that _seem_ to fall into to "Conspiracy" category?

Who is so _touchy_ that a simple and (on my part) friendly 'lighten up'
triggers the reply below?

Can I refute Bill's claims? Well I think other contributors have done a
good job with the CF field. I would also note that the history of early
aviation, from late 1903 to the start of WWI including the work the Wright
Brothers did with the U.S. military really puts any thoughts that, whatever
bias or suppression might have existed against powered flight, did any kind
of measurable harm to the development of the technology into the 'FANTASY'
realm. From a late 1903 flight that was shorter than the wingspan of a
modern airliner to the full-scale use of the technology of flight in warfare
in little over 10 years is a remarkable growth and the Wrights played an
important role from the first. The Air Force Aviation Museum and
Wright-Patterson AFB has an extensive and well documented display on this
early era of aviation. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the time Mr.
Beatty does to actively research all the other topics and areas.

Of course asking for firm examples of legitimate, important science that has
been suppressed can easily be countered with 'We don't know...because it's
been suppressed!' so this line of debate seems fruitless. My main point in
the original and one subsequent note was that ---- because there are many
avenues open to scientists today, it is hard to support the idea that
legitimate, important scientific discoveries are being unfairly suppressed.
Such work, especially that which may have economic viability, can find
support in the private sector or from other nations.

I won't waste the List's time with any more of this and will decline to
address any more or Mr. Beaty's replies.

Rick

*****************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE AVAILABLE
see descriptions at:

http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/

New Win9.x and PowerMac packages now available.
*******************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Discussion


On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Richard Tarara wrote:

Bill,

Lighten up! ;-)


If somebody else asks me to, then I certainly shall consider it. Let's
see...


I say that certain ideas and discoveries can be suppressed by disbelief.

You accuse me of paranoia (on what grounds?)

I object most strongly to your accusation, see it as an unseemly
attempt to belittle my assertion that suppression exists, and note a
clear similarity between such disparagement and the words of bigots who
attempt to hide their misdeeds by belittling the complaints of their
victims. There is a big difference between rational debate and words
motivated by hatred. I'd be delighted if you show me where the error
lies in my original assertion. But if you disparage or belittle my
assertion, I shall not sit still for it.

To respond, you ignore my complaint, and instead say "lighten up,"
which carries the clear implication that there is something wrong with
me (I'm too 'heavy'?), and also carries the implication that you are
already "lightened": that your original accusation is a "laughing
matter." It is not, and I shall not let this drop.


I object most strongly to your debating tactics. They are far worse than
unseemly. If you cannot point out my errors, or offer counterarguments,
but instead must resort to such low tactics, then I shall respond just as
I have done.





Regarding suppression, others here might wish to refer to a website where
inarguable scientific suppression is well-documented, and where the
mechanisms of suppression are analysed: when government and industry
attempts to suppress the efforts of scientist-whistleblowers:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent


http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Martin_93nw.html


The author Dr. Brian Martin has extended his efforts from "whistleblower"
realm to the suppression of dissenting scientific ideas in general, and
describes what can be done to counter the actions of those who wish to
attack and to silence the nonconformist voices.

STRATEGIES FOR DISSENTING SCIENTISTS
http://www.jse.com/martin/toc.html

Abstract

Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science
are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should
first realize that science is a system of power as well as of knowledge,
in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra
advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If
dissenters gain some recognition or outside support, they may be
attacked. In the face of such obstacles, several strategies are
available, which include mimicking science, aiming at lower status
outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a different audience, exposing
suppression of dissent, and building a social movement.




((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L