'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/acs-fm030810.php

Public release date: 21-Mar-2010

Contact: Michael Bernstein
[e-mail]
202-872-6042
http://www.acs.org/">American Chemical Society

'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance

SAN FRANCISCO, March 21, 2010 — A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic — "cold fusion" — being held here for the next two days in the Moscone Center during the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

"Years ago, many scientists were afraid to speak about 'cold fusion' to a mainstream audience," said Jan Marwan, Ph.D., the internationally known expert who organized the symposium. Marwan heads the research firm, Dr. Marwan Chemie in Berlin, Germany. Entitled "New Energy Technology," the symposium will include nearly 50 presentations describing the latest discoveries on the topic.

The presentations describe invention of an inexpensive new measuring device that could enable more labs to begin cold fusion research; indications that cold fusion may occur naturally in certain bacteria; progress toward a battery based on cold fusion; and a range of other topics. Marwan noted that many of the presentations suggest that cold fusion is real, with a potential to contribute to energy supplies in the 21st Century.

"Now most of the scientists are no longer afraid and most of the cold fusion researchers are attracted to the ACS meeting," Marwan said. "I've also noticed that the field is gaining new researchers from universities that had previously not pursued cold fusion research. More and more people are becoming interested in it. There's still some resistance to this field. But we just have to keep on as we have done so far, exploring cold fusion step by step, and that will make it a successful alternative energy source. With time and patience, I'm really optimistic we can do this!"

The term "cold fusion" originated in 1989 when Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons claimed achieving nuclear fusion at room temperature with a simple, inexpensive tabletop device. That claim fomented an international sensation because nuclear fusion holds potential for providing the world with a virtually limitless new source of energy. Fuel for fusion comes from ordinary seawater, and estimates indicate that 1 gallon of seawater packs the energy equivalent of 16 gallons of gasoline at 100 percent efficiency for energy production. The claim also ignited scepticism, because conventional wisdom said that achieving fusion required multi-billion-dollar fusion reactors that operate at tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

When other scientists could not reproduce the Pons-Fleishmann results, research on cold fusion fell into disrepute. Humiliated by the scientific establishment, their reputations ruined, Pons and Fleishmann closed their labs, fled the country, and dropped out of sight. The handful of scientists who continued research avoided the term "cold fusion." Instead, they used the term "low energy nuclear reactions (LENR)." Research papers at the ACS symposium openly refer to "cold fusion" and some describe cold fusion as the "Fleishmann-Pons Effect" in honor of the pioneers, Marwan noted.

"The field is now experiencing a rebirth in research efforts and interest, with evidence suggesting that cold fusion may be a reality." Marwan said. He noted, for instance, that the number of presentations on the topic at ACS National Meetings has quadrupled since 2007.

Among the reports scheduled for the symposium are:

• Michael McKubre, Ph.D., of SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., provides an overview of cold fusion research. McKubre will discuss current knowledge in the field and explain why some doubts exist in the broader scientific community. He will also discuss recent experimental work performed at SRI. McKubre will focus on fusion, heat production and nuclear products. (3pm, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin)


• George Miley, Ph.D., reports on progress toward a new type of battery that works through a new cold fusion process and has a longer life than conventional batteries. The battery consists of a special type of electrolytic cell that operates at low temperature. The process involves purposely creating defects in the metal electrode of the cell. Miley is a professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana and director of its Fusion Studies Lab. (11am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I)


• Melvin Miles, Ph.D., describes development of the first inexpensive instrument for reliably identifying the hallmark of cold fusion reactions: Production of excess heat from tabletop fusion devices now in use. Current "calorimeters," devices that measure excess heat, tend to be too complicated and inefficient for reliable use. The new calorimeter could boost the quality of research and open the field to scores of new scientists in university, government, and private labs, Miles suggests. He is with Dixie State College in St. George, Utah. (2.30pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I)


• Vladimir Vysotskii, Ph.D., presents surprising experimental evidence that bacteria can undergo a type of cold fusion process and could be used to dispose of nuclear waste. He will describe studies of nuclear transmutation — the transformation of one element into another — of stable and radioactive isotopes in biological systems. Vysotskii is a scientist with Kiev National Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine. (11.20am, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin I).


• Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., discusses an unconventional cold fusion device that uses phenanthrene, a substance found in coal and oil, as a reactant. He reports on excess heat production and gamma radiation production from the device. "Overall heat production exceeded any conceivable chemical reaction by two orders of magnitude," Mizuno noted. He is with Hokkaido University in Japan, and wrote the book Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. (3pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I)


• Peter Hagelstein, Ph.D., describes new theoretical models to help explain excess heat production in cold fusion, one of the most controversial aspects of the field. He notes that in a nuclear reaction, one would expect that the energy produced would appear as kinetic energy in the products, but in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment there do not appear energetic particles in amounts consistent with the energy observed. His simple models help explain the observed energy changes, including the type and quantity of energy produced. Hagelstein is with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (10.20am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I).


• Xing Zhong Li, Ph.D., presents research demonstrating that cold fusion can occur without the production of strong nuclear radiation. He is developing a cold fusion reactor that demonstrates this principle. Li is a scientist with Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. (9.10am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I).

###

[Ian David]

1. I saw stilthy toves gyring and gimbling in my wabe! Unicorns and faeries and cold fusion soon!

In case you missed what I was getting at, this is fucking stupid.

You know, in case you didn't get it.

In case you're not an it-getter.

[Orrex]

3. But Arthur C. Clarke went to his grave believing that cold fusion was right around the corner!

Don't tell me that the Father of the Communication Satellite was wrong?!?!?

:evilgrin:

[Ian David]

4. Even sci-fi writers are wrong sometimes. Even A.C. Clarke.

Have we found a Monolith yet?

Is Pan Am rocketing us to space stations?

ComputersaysNoooOOooo.

[Orrex]

5. So now you're saying that my stock in PanAm is worthless?!?

[wtmusic]

39. Yes. Now it's in Delta. nt

[Javaman]

36. Hey! HEY! it's just 10 years away!

:rofl:

[Crabby Appleton]

7. O frabjous day!

Callooh! Callay!

[Orrex]

10. Spare us your chortling, o beamish boy!

[Drunken Irishman]

2. That is still a running joke here in Salt Lake City.

[TlalocW]

6. What are you talking about?

I've been programming in Coldfusion for years. It's a nice fast way to make database-driven websites.

TlalocW

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Well, as we know, the ACS is a wacky bunch of tin foil hat types

http://portal.acs.org/portal/Navigate?nodeid=225

About ACS

With more than 161,000 members, the American Chemical Society (ACS) is the world’s largest scientific society and one of the world’s leading sources of authoritative scientific information. A nonprofit organization, chartered by Congress, ACS is at the forefront of the evolving worldwide chemical enterprise and the premier professional home for chemists, chemical engineers and related professions around the globe.

Our Mission and Vision

We are dynamic and visionary, committed to “Improving people’s lives through the transforming power of chemistry.”

This vision ─ developed and adopted by the ACS Board of Directors after broad consultation with the membership ─ fully complements the ACS Mission statement, which is “to advance the broader chemistry enterprise and its practitioners for the benefit of Earth and its people.” Together, these two statements represent our ultimate reason for being and provide a strategic framework for our efforts.

...

(I tend to be skeptical about "cold fusion," but when the ACS starts scheduling presentations, I'm interested.)

[Dogmudgeon]

9. You just hit a "Skep" hot button

Don't confuse them with facts -- they made their minds up in 1990. "Après Pons et Fleischmann, le déluge!"

They were the same way with biophotons, amorphous semiconductors, and prions, until incontrovertible evidence came in. Then it was: "We were never against it. We're all about science."

So of course, when a dangerous humbug comes along (like the "vaccinations cause autism" scare), nobody believes them. They shot their wad cracking wise over the aforementioned biophotons, amorphous semiconductors, and prions; nobody really cared about horoscopes and spoon-bending anyway.

The need to ridicule something, anything, is strong, and amplified by the Internet. Therein also is contained a lesson for the participants in the Great DU (Anti-) Nuclear War.

--d!

[Orrex]

11. Your misrepresentation of skepticism borders on flagrant dishonesty

Certainly, it's disingenuous at the very least.

I'd like to see your citation of skeptics who denied the possibility of prions before "incontrovertible evidence came in;" otherwise you're just making a lame and unsupported accusation.

I likewise don't recall anyone here dismissing amorphous semiconductors. Care to give a citation?

And regarding biophotons, surely you don't mean this? Because, if so, I'm not aware of anyone seriously denying them. Every time you use your eyes or feel radiant heat you're confirming biophotonics. Who would claim otherwise?

Or are you referring to the cellular communication angle? If so, then this is indeed a gray area, and it's only appropriate that a true skeptic would remain uncertain until convincing (not "incontrovertible") evidence is put forth.


If you're going to be taking cheap pot-shots, you really need to back up your accusations with sources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. THE CONTROVERSY BEHIND PRIONS

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/dna/prions/controversy.html

[Orrex]

13. As far as I know, prions have been "settled science" re: spongiform disease for at least 15 years

Does anyone still deny it? I'm not aware of any stubborn cabal of skeptics that "have been trying to prove him wrong ever since."

I don't plan to audit that course nor purchase the textbook for it; do you have a source that I can actually read? I'd like to hear more about the allegations that the campaign against Prusiner has indeed been going on for 28 years.

Skepticism of any monumental new claim is entirely appropriate, and Prusiner knew this when he put forth his theory in 1982. It's up to the claimant to support the claim, and until this support is given, then skepticism is the proper response. It may be the case that prions are responsible for other maladies; each of these must be demonstrated in turn. It would be the height of irresponsibility to say "yes, you're right" simply because someone offered up a claim.

Once a claim is credibly supported, then it is reasonable to accept the claim, at least until a more complete explanation is offered.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. "Established Science" for at least 15 years you say?

Here's a 2004 article from Nature Medicine:
www.nature.com/nm/journal/v10/n7s/full/nm1069.html

Nature Medicine 10, S63–S67 (2004)

The controversial protein-only hypothesis of prion propagation

Prion diseases are some of the most intriguing infectious disorders affecting the brains of humans and animals. The prevalent hypothesis proposes that the infectious agent is a misfolded protein that propagates in the absence of nucleic acid by transmission of its altered folding to the normal host version of the protein. This article details the evidence for and against the prion hypothesis, including results of recent studies in yeast, in which a prion phenomenon has also been identified. The evidence in favor of the prion model is very strong, but final proof—consisting of the generation of infectious prions in vitro—is still missing.

Claudio Soto & Joaquin Castilla

Claudio Soto and Joaquin Castilla are in the Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

...

[Orrex]

15. The original claim was that Prusiner is the victim of a concerted skeptical attack

This has not been demonstrated, and in fact it's a scare-mongering tactic commonly employed against skeptics (and science in general).

The article you posted is about the details of prion propagation, and until these are hammered out, it's appropriate that they should be scrutinized.

The language of the summary is honest and straightforward: "final proof--consisting of the generation of infectious prions in vitro--is still missing." That seems like a pretty reasonable objection to me.


What do you suggest as an alternative? That every theory be accepted until proven 100% wrong?

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. I don't suggest any alternative

I'm not arguing against the "Prion Hypothesis." I believe you were the one who asked:

...

I'd like to see your citation of skeptics who denied the possibility of prions before "incontrovertible evidence came in;" otherwise you're just making a lame and unsupported accusation.

...

Take this article for example:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/success_prion_en.htm

Success story: Prion hypothesis challenged by new Sheep study

Despite the fact that the Nobel Prize was awarded for the prion hypothesis, there remains the possibility that the infectious agent behind diseases such as mad cow, scrapie and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease might not necessarily be rogue prion protein. The findings of the SC GUT project, funded for five years via the European Commission’s Fifth Framework Programme, show that there is a need to remain diligent and open minded when investigating the causes of this group of diseases.

...

I just love the defiant tone. (Remind you of the attitude of "skeptics" toward the Nobel shared by the IPCC and Al Gore?)

[Orrex]

18. Look at the part that you quoted again:

I'd like to see your citation of skeptics who denied the possibility of prions before "incontrovertible evidence came in;" otherwise you're just making a lame and unsupported accusation.

Despite my request, you haven't shown that any skeptics have denied the possibility of prions. The suggestion of alternatives is not the denial of a possibility.

I am interested to learn that there's still so much dispute about spongiform disease, because I read articles in 1995 and 1996 that seemed pretty conclusive. I'll need to look into that further.

However, I reiterate that the suggestion of an alternative is not equivalent to denying a possibility; it's a responsible call for further investigation, if current conclusions can credibly be disputed.

I just love the defiant tone. (Remind you of the attitude of "skeptics" toward the Nobel shared by the IPCC and Al Gore?)

Right, right. Reasonable skepticism is the same as knee-jerk contrarianism. :eyes:


Incidentally, the "alternative" I was asking you for was not an alternative to the prion hypothesis (which I haven't disputed); it was in fact a request that you suggest some alternative method of inquiry instead of the current model that requires new claims to be scrutinized thoroughly before being accepted.

I would be very interested to learn what you'd offer in this regard.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Hmmm... Either you misunderstand me

Or you're misrepresenting me.

Science is all about forming and testing hypotheses.

The reactions near the top of this thread are not about testing a hypothesis. They're simply ridicule.

When an organization like the ACS thinks that "Cold Fusion" is worth talking about, I'm interested. Mind you, one of the criticisms of Fleishmann and Pons was that they were Chemists (and not nuclear physicists for example.)

[Orrex]

22. Neither, in fact.

First off, fusion is a nuclear rather than chemical process, so I'm more inclined to accept the claims of someone who is expert in the field of nuclear physics rather than chemistry, even if that chemist is brilliant in his or her field.

So Fleishmann and Pons were making poorly substantiated assertions outside of their field of expertise, and their claims were shown to be entirely inaccurate. Even if cold fusion is demonstrated at some later date, it's unlikely that the Fleishmann/Pons technique will be of any direct relevance.


When a claim is put forth that is substantially identical to a debunked claim, it is not necessary to debunk the claim anew; it is sufficient to refer to the previous disproof. Since cold fusion has been disproven repeatedly, and since it's dragged out again and again as an example of "cutting-edge science that doesn't get a fair shake," it's hardly surprising that people who've seen it all before would react with impatience and ridicule.

Let the ACS talk about it, and if they have new claims worth investigating, they'll be investigated. But until the claims are truly new, then they merit no new response.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Here's a press release from last year's ACS meeting

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/acs-fr031709.php

Public release date: 23-Mar-2009

Contact: Michael Bernstein
[e-mail]
202-872-6042
American Chemical Society

'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source

Note to journalists: Please report that this research was presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society

SALT LAKE CITY, March 23, 2009 — Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance, describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring.

An experimental "cold fusion" device produced this pattern of "triple tracks" (shown at right), which scientists say is caused by high-energy nuclear particles resulting from a nuclear reaction

Low-energy nuclear reactions could potentially provide 21st Century society a limitless and environmentally-clean energy source for generating electricity, researchers say. The report, which injects new life into this controversial field, will be presented here today at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting. It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.

"Our finding is very significant," says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."

The first report on "cold fusion," presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. Fusion is the energy source of the sun and the stars. Scientists had been striving for years to tap that power on Earth to produce electricity from an abundant fuel called deuterium that can be extracted from seawater. Everyone thought that it would require a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

Pons and Fleishmann, however, claimed achieving nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures — in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.

But other scientists could not reproduce their results, and the whole field of research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. One of their problems involved extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process, researchers say.

In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or "heavy water" in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.

Researchers passed electric current through the solution, causing a reaction within seconds. The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.

At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of "triple tracks," tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Importantly, Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe that the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.

"People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons?'" Mosier-Boss says. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions."

They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes.

Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can't predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study.

...

You can read the actual study here:
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol2.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=191844&mesg_id=191844


A scientific mind should be open to new evidence, even if it contradicts orthodoxy.

[Orrex]

26. "A scientific mind should be open to new evidence, even if it contradicts orthodoxy."

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Any followup on this article, by the way? Any independent reproduction of the results, for instance? Where has the science gone in the year since this article was published?


Incidentally, it's not really helpful of you to post links to 360 pages of technical articles; since I presume that you've read them both from cover to cover, could you point me to the most tellingly relevant passages?

I could, for instance, say "here's an article disproving cold fusion" and then post a link to 500 pages' worth of debunking. Would you read it?

[conscious evolution]

43. People should not work outside of their area of expertise

Otherwise a couple of bicycle mechanics might invent something not related to bicycles.

[Orrex]

45. Pithy.

If it's a matter of building a powered glider, that's one thing. If it's a matter of chemists violating the known laws of physics, it'll take evidence a little more compelling than tracks on a sheet of plastic.

[conscious evolution]

47. Orville and Wilbur also violated

the 'known' laws of physics of the time.
A lot of 'experts' of that time had to rethink Bernoulli after the Wrights did their thing.

[Orrex]

49. Okay, fine. Let the current Orville and Wilbur build their cold fusion machine

You're falling back on the old "they said so-and-so was crazy, too" trope. That's fine, but ninety-nine times out of one hundred, so-and-so really was crazy. And for that other one percent, no one accepts their ideas simply by fiat.

Let them be demonstrated, and then we'll discuss them. No one is under any obligation whatsoever to accept unsupported claims, and a few tracks on a sheet of plastic does not constitute adequate support in this case.

Until the current Orville and Wilbur's experiment can be independently confirmed, or until Orville and Wilbur can put forth their claim in the form of an independently testable and reproducible format, then they're just making a claim with no evidence.

Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't say "we can fly in our heavier-than-air-vehicle, but we're not going to show you." Instead, they build the thing and flew it in front of witnesses. Your analogy falls on its face because the current Orville and Wilbur have done no such thing. Instead, their advocates are saying "even though this violates the known laws of physics, and even though they have little evidence to support their claim, their claim must be regarded seriously."

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It's up to the claimant to support the claim. When this has been verifiably done, then we'll talk.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. "... (C)oncerted skeptical attack"

That's Drama-Queen-size exaggeration.

If a bunch of wise-ass geeks high on themselves is a "concerted skeptical attack", then the Teabaggers are an elite military strike force.

What I wrote is unmistakable to anyone who isn't personally emotionally involved: it's about Skeptics ridiculing and cracking wise about anything or anyone failing their "smell test" -- an unfalsifiable, feelings-based cortical bypass. The abundance of Skeptical ridicule has a strongly negative effect on scientists who are still building careers, not to mention lay people who are not scientifically adept and who still have to learn how to reason more critically. See Shermer, op. cit..

So: is this personal, or are you committed to democratic scientific discourse? Do you favor education, or ridicule? That's a rhetorical question; you are the only one who ever has to know.

--d!

[Orrex]

27. Here's the quote from the cited article:

Ever since Stanley Prusiner coined the term prion in 1982 and showed that purified prions can transmit spongiform disease, skeptics have been trying to prove him wrong.

This pretty clearly implies a coordinated on-going effort. Are you unable to see this? The language itself is sensationalistic, yet it gets a pass from you. But when I latch onto the sentiment, I'm labeled a drama queen. Again, that's a nice double-standard.

So: is this personal, or are you committed to democratic scientific discourse? Do you favor education, or ridicule? That's a rhetorical question; you are the only one who ever has to know.

Well, I'll answer it, if only because I find your smugly masturbatory tone so colorful.

"Democratic scientific discourse" is, of course, a red herring. Given your background in neuroscience, I'm sure that you know this (by the way: over-eager assertion of one's bona fides? Check!) Science is not democratic, nor should it be. Why would you think otherwise?

Do I favor education or ridicule? Well, obviously that's an artificial choice (in deference to your stated qualms, I'll forgo the Latin). Education is of great importance, of course, but there's no reason that ridicule should be excluded when ridiculous ideas are put forth. You've seen fit to ridicule me (via your own artificial checklist), so surely you embrace ridicule as a legitimate rhetorical device, no?

[Dogmudgeon]

32. And what is this? You don't like irony? Smugness? Ridicule?

You do know that you have been corresponding with TWO people, right? So what were you citing at me? I made the claim, inter alia, that jerks have hassled Prusiner, and you called it a concerted attack.

I'll repeat it: I have copped to being a dick. In fact, I'll go myself one further: I'll cop to being an asshole. I have taken that right because YOU jumped on ME after I took a jab at Ian David. YOU strenuously picked this fight, and you bit off more than you can chew.

So, how is it that you bit off more than you can chew? Is it because I am such a fearsome Master of Combat? Hell, no. It's because I have been making a simple point:

I hate bullies. I have seen how they have damaged public acceptance of, and education in, Science.

You defend bullies. I.e., the Skepticism movement, or at least its rump faction. (No, this isn't about Mr. David.)

I don't care what rhetorical faux-pas you have caught me in; I just gave you several more. All your intellectualization is now just an unnecessary face-saving routine. I don't know why you persist, because I don't consider any of this the modern equivalent of cuckoldry, but perhaps you do. Nor do I account you as "faceless". If you want to have a dialog about the problems of defending and promoting Science in society, I'll be happy to participate. If you want to shadow-box, I'll go along with it until my dinner is ready. Feel free to hate me; I don't hate you.

But I DO hate the malignant tumor in the body of skeptical thought that kills Science one sneer at a time.

--d!

[Orrex]

34. I first interacted with you in my response to your reply #9, which had nothing to do with Ian David

Go back and read it again. I'll wait.

Ready?

I have taken that right because YOU jumped on ME after I took a jab at Ian David.

Well, that's clearly bullshit. I took issue with your post after you called out those mean ol' skeptics.

YOU strenuously picked this fight, and you bit off more than you can chew.

This is also clearly bullshit. Since your reply #9 was a direct call-out and obvious flame bait, you clearly picked this fight.

And "bit off more than (I) can chew?" Puh-leeze. That's just chest-thumping, akin to your masturbatory tone I described earlier.

I hate bullies. I have seen how they have damaged public acceptance of, and education in, Science.

Ah. So it is personal for you. Got it.

You defend bullies. I.e., the Skepticism movement, or at least its rump faction.

Again, that's bullshit. First, skeptics aren't bullies just because you say so, so I could reject your accusation outright on those grounds. Second, I've asked for support of derogatory claims, and you haven't given it. Third, I've pointed out that substantially identical claims do not merit new debunking; that's simply a fact, which I suppose you could construe as a defense of bullying, if you really tried.

I don't care what rhetorical faux-pas you have caught me in; I just gave you several more. All your intellectualization is now just an unnecessary face-saving routine. I don't know why you persist, because I don't consider any of this the modern equivalent of cuckoldry, but perhaps you do. Nor do I account you as "faceless". If you want to have a dialog about the problems of defending and promoting Science in society, I'll be happy to participate. If you want to shadow-box, I'll go along with it until my dinner is ready. Feel free to hate me; I don't hate you.

Now, here you really lapse into the weird. What you dismiss as intellectualization is in fact an attempt to discuss the issue; that you fail to see this is not relevant.

If you'd care to have a discussion about promoting science in society, please start that thread, and I'll happily join in.

I don't hate you. After this thread, I honestly won't give you a second thought until we bump into each other again in another thread.

However, I'm in the east, and it's getting late, but I don't want you to think that I just arbitrarily ran from the discussion. So do me a favor: pick a number between one and four, and I'll reply to you that many more times. Then I'm going to bed. On Edit: Sorry--it's later than I realized. I'm turning in now, but I'll give you those one-through-four replies tomorrow.


Enjoy your dinner.

[kristopher]

16. It was a clumsy attempt to malign the argument againsts nuclear power

Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of the economic and environmental drawbacks of nuclear power, cognitive dissonance is relieved by asserting that all opposition is based on knee-jerk fear and lack of comprehension of the technological wonder of the harnessed atom.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Yep. I hit a BIG nerve.

Takes personal offense on behalf of the tribe? Check.

Accusations of dishonesty and unethical behavior? Check.

Angry demands for citations, usually outside the scope of the "offense"? Check.

Incredulous denials that early scientific investigation is ridiculed? Check.

Gratuitous and condescending use of the word "silly"? Pending.

Recruits several allies into the "fight"? Pending.

Sarcastic clip art and ROFL icons posted? Pending.

Behind-the-back gossip on skeptic-only forums? Pending.

Avoidance of the issue of active, enthusiastic incivility in the Skeptic movement? Check!

Citations: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html">A Skeptical Manifesto (Passim, but particularly starting from "The history of the words “skeptic” and “skepticism” is interesting and often amusing." up to "Rational Skepticism".)

I admit it: I'm a dick. And you would NEVER have considered your own tribe's errors unless I swung it around like the original wiseacre (Ian David, I think.)

If this is just about having a fight, it's over. You got your licks in. I don't intend to argue all night posting the Latin names of rhetorical tropes. The Skeptics' arrogance has severely impeded science education and has frequently produced stronger adherence to nonsense, even dangerous nonsense. Skeptic classes for kids have come to resemble (secularized) Vacation Bible School and DARE classes. I do not make these claims lightly. You want to promote Science? You don't ridicule people in the name of Science and then expect them to subscribe to Skeptic Magazine in order to purge themselves of their intellectual sins.

If you would REALLY like to discuss this problem, I'll be happy to. But it has usually led to extreme anger on the part of Skeptics, quickly, even (especially) when I am discussing it with painstaking and scrupulous civility. Simply, I've been there, done that, got an even LESS civil response than when I act like a dick -- and I still have little-to-no respect for bullies from L. Ron Hubbard clones to anonymous Internet Martin Gardner wanna-bes.

Bona Fides: I'm an atheist. I have no mystical beliefs whatsoever. I had a 20-year career in neuroscience, biomedical informatics, medical editing, and plain old computer programming. I was quite involved in the Skeptic movement from the late 1970s until about 10 years ago. In college, for my first real taste of research, I performed a controlled, blinded study of natal astrology and found it to be worthless (but it was worth an "A" and a letter to grad school). So none of this "Dogmudgeon is a woo-woo! Woo-woo! Woo-woo!" stuff. I know what Science is from first-hand experience -- and it isn't ridicule.

--d!

[Orrex]

21. So, it's okay for you to call people out with your flame-bait, but it's not okay to respond?

Nice double standard.

By your own admission you're a dick. Far be it from me to dispute this.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Now THAT is world-class Irony!

The only thing that has a corresponding object in reality is "By your own admission you're a dick."

I'm a dick because when I'm nice, I am the dick-ee.

Tell me: who did I call out? I snapped at Ian David. Let HIM kick my ass if it grieves you so. And I would answer him differently, anyway.

So ...

Who flamed the OP?

Who flamed CF scientists?

Who demanded academic citations in response to a rebuke of the public incivility and hypocrisy of others?

Who is now exaggerating everything I have said and done in this regard?

Clue: None of it is "Dogmudgeon". I've already copped to my flaws.

Again: Is this about you and your violated sense of tribalism, or is it about science in our society?

--d!
"Double Standard". Excellent! Now all you need is to write "Straw Man", "Ad Hominem", and "Occam's Razor", and I'll have BINGO.

[Orrex]

29. What tribe are you talking about?

Every time you refer to "the tribe" or "tribalism" or the like, it comes across as flailing and desperate of you. I've summoned no reserves, nor have I mentioned this elsewhere. I'm not the rallying-cry type; if others find this thread on their own, so be it. If you feel the need to address a larger skeptical audience, I leave that to you.

Absolutely no one has flamed the original poster--find me someone who did. Instead, the cited article and its claims were mocked. The flaming of off-site scientists is nowhere mentioned by DU's TOS, though I now fully expect you to accuse me of hiding behind the TOS. So be it. An anonymous call-out is just as much an effort to hide behind the letter of the TOS, so you'd be guilty of the same infraction.

Your post directly called out skeptics (that's the call-out) and dared people to take issue with you (and that's the flame bait). The fact that you didn't use specific names isn't relevant.

Who demanded academic citations in response to a rebuke of the public incivility and hypocrisy of others?

Not me. I asked that you support your assertion that skeptics had unreasonably rejected controversial claims. Is it inappropriate to ask for support of such a claim? How so?

Who is now exaggerating everything I have said and done in this regard?

Not me. Why do you ask?

I've also seen dozens of DU threads wherein the Righteous Champion of Rhetorical Integrity offers up a checklist whose completion is somehow seen as a validation of some underlying belief (in this case, presumably, that skeptics are a reactionary tribe). It's a preemptive effort to render oneself proof against criticism, and it's only convincing to people who don't think about it too much. I could as readily assemble a checklist by which your own posturing might be judged, and it would have equal validity. Would it be helpful for you if I were to assemble that list?


Why is this so personal for you? Are you defending some tribe?

[NNadir]

24. Somebody needs to channel the afterlife spirit of...

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood">Robert Wood.

[wtmusic]

30. Alchemy, Zero-Point Energy, Cold Fusion....

like sirens their lure proves irresistible.

And it is all nonsense.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Is the ACS accepting papers on Alchemy?

How about Zero-Point-Energy devices?

If they aren't, then there's something different about "Cold Fusion."

Honestly, a prestigious scientific organization is hosting presentations at their annual meeting, and you don't think that warrants even curiosity?

[wtmusic]

33. No, I don't think so.

The fundamental problem of the Coulomb Barrier renders all this stuff moot as surely as did nuclear physics the chemical permutation of lead to gold.

But the lure is there, and once you get enough people excited some who should know better start drinking the Koolaid.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. And what if it's called "LENR" - "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" instead?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[wtmusic]

41. Then it's OK. nt

[Javaman]

37. Maybe they are trying to fusing two pieces of lead in absolute zero to turn them into gold?

:rofl:

[mojowork_n]

35. Pons & Fleischmann...

...disappeared?

That's the curious part of the story for a layperson like me. I mean, in sports athletes are sometimes banned from the league for one transgression or another; politicians may be disgraced and retire from public life, but what was the crime that those two commited? They guessed wrong, or misinterpreted some data?

What happened to them? Did they move to Bolivia, like Butch & Sundance wanted to do? Are they sharing a cell in the same limbo that houses D.B. Cooper, Judge Crater, and Jimmy Hoffa?

You scientists are a rough bunch.

[wtmusic]

38. The academic equivalent of Sammy Sosa/Mark McGwire

You are correct, the show business end of science is dealt with much more harshly than that of sports. Not only did they jump the gun but they broke an agreement with a fellow researcher in hopes of stealing glory for themselves.

In karmic retribution, Fleischmann and Pons are now associated with pathological science and Steven Jones maintains an obscure but professional reputation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. It's a shame science isn't a democratic institution.

Because maybe then "acceptance" would mean something.

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. You believe that it isn't?

If science is not a democratic institution, then why all of the fuss about "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus">scientific consensus?"

Reality may or may not be swayed by the majority, but "science" clearly is.

[Orrex]

46. You misunderstand what scientific consensus means.

You're using it to imply a huge and nebulous gray zone in which all fact is up for grabs, when the areas of contention are much narrower and more specific. You seem, for instance, to be pretending that a bunch of scientists could gather together and, by majority vote, determine that water freezes at 50° C.

Scientific consensus is widespread acceptance of a demonstrated phenomenon or verified theory; it is not a majority opinion called upon to declare a matter settled in the absence of evidence. Majority opinion doesn't trump reality, not even when you put science in scare-quotes. Phrasing it that way is equivalent to attempting to dismiss scientists as out-of-touch ivory tower eggheads.

If someone could reliably and reproducibly demonstrate that water does indeed freeze at 50° C, then you can bet that the scientific community would take notice.

It can't be denied that scientists are human, and I'm sure that many of them have the same stubborn foibles as anyone else. Therefore you're naturally going to get some scientists who deny even the most compelling evidence. That's the fault of the individuals, and not the scientific process.

These cold fusion claims aren't resisted simply on the grounds that a majority of scare-quote scientists don't like them; the claims are resisted because the supporting evidence is insufficiently compelling to overcome the inconsistencies between claims of cold fusion and everything that's known about nuclear fusion. If the claims turn out to be true, then the proponents will need to present incredibly solid evidence.

[OKIsItJustMe]

48. I understand what "scientific consensus" is

I also understand that there are psychological aspects to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus#Scientific_consensus_and_the_scientific_minority

...

Scientific consensus and the scientific minority

In a standard application of the psychological principle of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias, scientific research which supports the existing scientific consensus is usually more favorably received than research which contradicts the existing consensus. In some cases, those who question the current paradigm are at times heavily criticized for their assessments. Research which questions a well supported scientific theory is usually more closely scrutinized in order to assess whether it is well researched and carefully documented. This caution and careful scrutiny is used to ensure that science is protected from a premature divergence away from ideas supported by extensive research and toward new ideas which have yet to stand the testing by extensive research. However, this often results in conflict between the supporters of new ideas and supporters of more dominant ideas, both in cases where the new idea is later accepted and in cases where it is later abandoned.

...

[Orrex]

50. All of that is tangential and a diversion.

What you're saying, ultimately, is that the current cold fusion claims are being rejected solely because of scientific orthodoxy. If you dispute this, please say so; nowhere have I seen you even consider the possibility that the current claim is simply erroneous or false. Instead, you have assumed outright--and repeatedly--that the claim is being rejected because it flies in the face of convention.

You're not the only one arguing from this faulty premise, either, if that makes you feel any better.


And, while we're at it, the excerpt you cited explains exactly why the current cold fusion claims can't be accepted without rigorous independent verification. But I'm sure that you realize that.

[OKIsItJustMe]

51. It's quite possible for there to be false/mistaken claims

On the other hand, we're not talking about a single study, by a single lab here.

Instead, we're talking about multiple studies, by multiple labs. Something appears to be going on. Is it "cold fusion?" (It seems unlikely.)

So, what is an appropriate scientific response? To laugh it off, and assume that all of these researchers are delusional, or to present a hypothesis which meets the facts.

Check out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x237648">On the Reality of LENR and the Mythology of Cold Fusion for one such hypothesis.

[Orrex]

54. wtmusic and caraher have given fantastic replies that need to be addressed IMO

You're mistaking studies with results. So far, despite all of the studies, no one has produced compelling results. That's the piece that's missing; until someone can step forward with a cold fusion machine and data to back it up, then there's no real reason to take it seriously.

The much-revered Linus Pauling, for instance, worshiped at the altar of vitamin C for decades. That doesn't mean he was right, nor does his interest in itself mean that his assertions need to be taken seriously.

The same for cold fusion. Until the technique is actually shown to amend the known laws of physics, it's up to its advocates to demonstrate it; it's not up to the skeptics to embrace it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. You mean like this response?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=237575&mesg_id=237679

What exactly would you call "compelling results?" A working power plant? (If so, then there are no compelling results for "hot fusion" either.)

For "global warming skeptics" to date, there have been no "compelling results" from the atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases. (If you choose not to believe, no evidence is sufficiently compelling.)

I don't suppose you're actually looking at anything I've provided you; you apparently have no scientific curiosity.

[Orrex]

56. Predictably, you resort to insults

I pointed out that it was unhelpful of you to post 360 pages of technical reports, and indeed I did click on your other threads. What's your point?

"Compelling results" would entail an unambiguous and independently reproducible demonstration that cold fusion is occurring, and that inferential observations (waste heat, "neutron" tracks, etc.) aren't explained more reasonably by other phenomena.

Hot fusion is an element of nuclear weapons, as you may be aware. Additionally, it occurs and is observable in the Sun and other stars. The phenomenon itself is not contrary to known nuclear physics. Cold fusion, in stark contrast, has been observed nowhere in nature, nor has it been produced via experiment, and it defies key aspects of known nuclear physics. You're comparing a phenomenon that occurs constantly to a phenomenon that can't verifiably be said to have occurred at all and which would require a rewriting of physics if it were demonstrated.

Surely you see that this comparison is faulty?

Your attempt to equate me to a global warming denier is an example of the emptiness of your argument: you're taking a wild swing in hope of injuring me rhetorically, but you'll need to do better than that, because that comparison is likewise faulty.

Global warming is the scientific consensus, and it has been confirmed repeatedly through a great many disparate observations. And you're equating this in some way to cold fusion, which hasn't ever been verifiably demonstrated?


You incorrectly criticize me for a lack of scientific curiosity. In contrast, I criticize you for a great deal of pseudoscientific credulousness.

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. Well, at least we can both mischaracterize the other

I'm actually quite leery of "pseudoscience." However, once again, when the ACS takes this field of research seriously enough to host presentations, I'm interested.

I just don't understand why you are not. (Unless you believe the ACS is prone to pseudoscientific credulousness.)

Researchers are getting reproducible results, and have been for years.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml
http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09.htm
http://ie.lbl.gov/astro/astrorate/NDM144.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpLX8478Y8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltZhii3g2HY

[Orrex]

62. The ACS, as has been noted repeatedly, is operating out of its field of expertise

No one has suggested that the members are uneducated or unintelligent, but when chemists claim to have unseated a basic principle of physics, the claim requires greater support than a handful of seminars and presentations.

When experts in the field of nuclear physics start getting behind this alleged phenomenon, then I'll be more interested.


Until the purported phenomenon is significantly different from the Pons/Fleischman debacle, then there's little basis for taking it seriously.

This doesn't speak of a lack of scientific curiosity, nor of some campaign by a hegemonic majority; it's common sense. If you claim that you've produced mice from old shirts in a barn, then I'll need more than your say-so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

64. So then, the ACS cannot recognize valid scientific methods?

See, the problem is, people are producing more heat than can be explained by Chemical reactions (that's well within the ACS' field of expertise.)

Although the phrase "Cold Fusion" is still used, as researchers are learning more, one of the names that has been given to it is:

CANR - Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions


However, I don't mean to try to convince you that this effect is "real" or "imaginary." It's clear your mind is made up. No amount of evidence will persuade you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpLX8478Y8

[Orrex]

67. Again, you mischaracterize me

It is abundantly clear that your mind is made up, as well. However, I enjoy the benefit of having current science on my side; you've made your mind up based on wishful thinking and premature conclusion.

Certainly the ACS can recognize valid scientific methods, but so what? So can I. That doesn't make me an expert in nuclear fusion.


If I am wrong, and if the good people of the ACS are indeed demonstrating cold fusion, I will most certainly recant. Conversely, what would it take for you to conclude that the ACS is incorrect?

You're saying that nuclear reactions are being initiated via chemical means. This would be a profound development worthy of great excitement, if it could be convincingly demonstrated. It's curious that physicists are less excited about this than chemists. Do you propose that all of the physicists have banded together with the nefarious purpose of locking out the ACS?


Incidentally, in all the internet, there is nothing more annoying than a person who debates via links. Provide them when necessary, as a compliment to your position; don't use them like a shotgun in place of argument. You've done this well over a dozen times, basically requiring me to read hundreds of pages of text.

The right way to do it is to give an excerpt with a clear attribution. Instead, you throw up a ton of chaff and cluck your tongue when I don't reach the same conclusions that you've reached.

Are you truly that careless in your rhetoric? Can you not give a direct citation?

[caraher]

52. Call me when it's the APS

Shortly after the cold fusion story broke I worked in a highly multidisciplinary research center. And most of the chemists *wanted* to believe Pons & Fleischman and the physicist were mostly pretty skeptical. There was a pretty steady parade of chemists asking to borrow our neutron ball survey instrument because they wanted to try a little cold fusion on the side. The physicists mainly read what they could, and what they saw mainly turned them to making wisecracks.

When I see ACS sponsoring sessions on cold fusion, it really doesn't look like a change in "mainstream acceptance" - it's more a show of interest and hope. I remember the story from a year ago, and I don't see Steve Chu beating a path to this year's ACS meeting. While physicists could be accused, with some justice, of taking a "not invented here" attitude toward cold fusion, skepticism has a much better track record than optimism. And the fact that practical use of "hot" fusion is still the same number of decades away as it was when I was a boy in the '70s doesn't change that.

[Orrex]

53. Great post.

Cuts to the heart of it IMO. I was reluctant to cast aspersions on the ACS because I had no grounds to do so, even though I suspected that they might not be the definitive authority on matters of nuclear physics.

I also recall, perhaps incorrectly, a curious secrecy about the technique when Pons & Fleischman went public with their claims, at least initially. I remember reading about others attempting to reproduce the experiments from the pictures of P&F's attempt, going so far as to use either P's or F's wrist to estimate the scale of the apparatus.

[caraher]

57. Of course, the ACS is a perfectly legitimate, well-respected body

It's just not - as you say - the epicenter of nuclear physics expertise!

I'm fine with their going ahead and exploring. I'm just not going to hold my breath expecting a breakthrough!

[Orrex]

58. That's my stance as well

The dumbest member of the ACS knows more about chemistry than I do, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to rewrite nuclear physics.

It strikes me as rather like a brilliant car mechanic who knows little about HVAC but who claims to have made a revolutionary breakthrough.


Show me the fusion, I say!

[wtmusic]

59. I was thinking the same thing.

Chemists seem a bit jealous that their valence bonds just don't measure up.

[struggle4progress]

61. How exciting. Although we still have no real evidence that "cold fusion" occurs,

we are finding "evidence" that bacteria using "cold fusion" can solve our nuclear waste problem and that polycyclic compounds in oil can produce energy from "cold fusion." Maybe I should write a paper suggesting that acres of used tires could become a valuable "cold fusion" source

[XemaSab]

63. Cold fusion and a dollar will get you a Coke

:P

[OKIsItJustMe]

65. So, you're saying "Cold Fusion" is worth a quarter?

...

[XemaSab]

66. I'm saying things are expensive in California

:P