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 = Pathological science ???



On Saturday, Jul 17, 2004, at 12:02 America/New_York, Chuck Britton
wrote:

Earthshaking shaking claims require earthshaking evidence.
Are you saying that such evidence is being suppressed and HAS been
for lo these many years ???

This stand wouldn't be giving the 'physics community' much credit.
Has EVERYONE missed out on the shaking of the earth?

How long was required for 'polywater' to become a lost cause?
or does that research continue as well?

At 3:34 AM -0400 7/17/04, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
1) An interesting piece from Brian Josephson (Nobel prize in 1973 for
the discovery of a superconducting electronic switch) about
pseudoscience.

http://www.lindau-nobel.de/images/ock/media/downloads/
Media_1703187544.htm

It is his lecture at the last annual meeting of Nobel winners in
Landau, Germany. According to Haiko Lietz, a science reporter who
attended the gathering: "the Lindau conference was very interesting,
as one can imagine. Brian Josephson created a big stir. He spoke
extensively on cold fusion, and how unscientific attitudes and a
publication policy prohibited the field from becoming known in the
scientific community. He was the talk of the day. Many students were
asking him questions, they were open and interested. Reactions by the
Nobel laureates were twofold: Some seemed to be surprised that cold
fusion is still around, while others remained silent."

2) New items were added at my cold fusion website:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) In my opinion dangers of degeneration of science are very real. And
I have no doubt that pseudoscientists exist. But I see no evidence that
major cold fusion claims, described in item #152 on my website:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

are examples of pseudoscience. Some of these claims might become part
of accepted science, others might be rejected as invalid (due to errors
etc.). That is normal.

2) Let me give you an example of what Brian Josephson calls the
"denunciation mode" of operation (by leaders of intellectual
activities, such as editors of our journals). The example is based on
personal experience (see item #154 on the above website). An objective
summary of major cold fusion claims (see item #152) was consecutively
submitted to editors of five journals. The manuscript was rejected by
all of them, without being sent to referees. Each editor answered
differently but the bottom line was the same: your manuscript does not
correspond to our current needs. My review, as you can verify, does not
defend cold fusion claims; it tries to describe them objectively. Why
isn't the review sent to referees? Why couldn't it be published,
provided, of course, that its accuracy is not challenged by referees?
This is not new; the intellectual establishment has often operated in
the denunciation mode. How can critical thinkers be protected from
bureaucrats? How do bureaucrats benefit from acts of suppression and
oppression of cold fusion?

3) I just became a retired teacher and this allows me to participate in
the 11th Cold Fusion Conference in France (October 31-November 5). It
is very unlikely that my own research (just started) will produce
something worth reporting. I do see something but it needs more
attention. Therefore my presentation, during the public relations
session, will be based on what I wrote above. In that context your
input, under this thread, will be highly appreciated. Or write to me in
private, if you prefer.

4) In the message that started this thread I forgot to mention that I
would not know about Josephson's lecture if Steven Krivit did not send
me “New Energy Times Newsletter (dated July 15, 2004). Krivit, a
journalist specializing in science, is the editor of that newsletter.
To subscribe write to:
newsletter@newenergytimes.com

Ludwik Kowalski