Here’s last month’s thread on these findings. The problem is that even if this turns out to be the genuine article, which (as Pleonast noted above) only has remained elusive for so long because of a certain sophistication necessary for the correct experimental setup that we don’t yet reliably have (say some very specific form of impurity in the palladium electrode or something like that), it might just prove infeasible as an actual means of power generation – palladium is already an extremely rare element, and, even if this were above the breaking even threshold on its own, it might be pushed below it by the additional costs required for getting the precise setup to having it work (i.e. additional refinement of the palladium to be used, for instance).
That’s exactly what it is.
That’s the way humans normally think, but I’m not sure it’s ideal. Why should the claim “children get more colds than adults” not require good scrutiny? I hate reading papers that feature a dumb experiment and then use it to conclude something the researches knew was true anyway. That’s not good science. And if you make an extraodinary claim, but show up with ordinary evidence, you still deserve to be “seriously considered.” Maybe your whole theory isn’t true, but maybe parts of it are. The ordinary evidence is there and it’s pointing to something. If you ignore it outright, you’re just being a dick. It’s not scientific in the least.
On a different note, it’s sad that these days scientists won’t believe anything interesting unless it can be explained a priori. This is true for a number of things beside cold fusion. (A good example is the claim that animals, particularly humans, evolve instincts that are good for the group and hardly help the individual or their family, which simple natural selection can’t explain.) That is a phenomenally hubristic attitude. Most things in history were first observed then studied before they could be explained. We don’t know everything yet, folks. It’s always the stubborn asshole in the office who hears something you say, thinks for a minute whether he can justify or explain it in his head, and declares to you “impossible” when he can’t.
Cute; you avoid answering the question directly by recursively begging the question. Now let’s see if you can try not being a jackass and point to an actual example of this exclusive to this specific line of discussion.
I think you are conflating different things, here, specifically, that hypotheses that fit well within the existing framework of the scientific discipline they function in are scrutinized only to the extent that they match the predictions within that framework; whereas theories which stand in contradiction of the existing framework–and will therefore generate a cascade of challenges to an entire area of that discipline–require greater rigor and stronger falsification criteria.
Let’s use an example from the history of physics that fundamentally changed the foundations of that science: the luminiferous aether. The luminiferous aether was an explanation–seemingly, the only one–that allowed the demonstrable wave properties of light to be valid. Even though the aether–practically by definition–couldn’t be directly observed or sampled, the properties of it, specifically its transmissibility of light waves, was well characterized. (Although it was Augustin Fresnel who mathematically established the classical wave nature of light, ironically Isaac Newton first introduced the concept of an aether to his corpuscular (particle) theory of light to cope with refraction.)
By the end of the Nineteenth Century, the notion of a luminiferous aether was well-grounded and accepted framework and physicists dealing with optics and luminous phenomena were mostly in the business of filling in the missing bits, when two cats named Michelson and Morley attempted to measure via interferometry the displacement of the Earth relative to a presumably static aether (prompted by the faster of electrodynamics, James Clerk Maxwell), only to find that the measurement was the same regardless of which direction they pointed the apparatus. The less celebrated Trouton–Noble experiment came to the same conclusion. Weird stuff, indeed, for such an accepted theory to give wrong predictions for a simple experiement.
Many new theories were concocted which involved dragging the aether along with a massive body, but they did not explain the utter lack of bias even from light that travelled from celestial bodies across vast distances. Come the first decade of the Twentieth Century, and in rapid succession Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaire, and Albert Einstein publish the fundaments of a theory Einstein called “Special Relativity” (special because it was restricted to flat areas of space where frame dragging and other gravitation effects were insignificant.) Special Relativity was unique because it established–unlike then contemporary theories of mechanics and electrodynamics) that there are no privileged reference frames, no absolute grounds. The movement of a body could only be quantified relative to to a chosen inertial reference frame, hence why the speed of light was the same in all directions.
This, along with Einstein’s efforts to explain the photoelectric effect (using Max Planck’s “mathematical trick” of quantizing the absorption and emission of light) revolutionized the entire field of physics. However, this was strongly challenged–and rightly so–by the old guard of scientists whose theories and education were predicated on a wave media. The resulting conflict–which required extraordinary evidence and new techniques–gave us Special and General Relativity as well as quantum mechanics, a theory as undeniably functional as it is inexplicable. Even Einstein, who rejected many of the tenets of QM had to acknowledge that Nature had at least an apparent statistical basis, and that either the one-to-one casual correspondence of GR or the desire for a mechanistic universe was wrong.
To have thrown out the long established theory of luminiferous aether on the basis of a single failed set of experiments without two decades of challenge and extraordinary evidence to the contrary would have been foolish. LM worked, and worked well, for almost two centuries, but it was ultimately almost completely wrong.
This is utter nonsense. First of all, scientists don’t (or at least shouldn’t) “believe” anything except insofar as creatively formulating a hypothesis to be challenged to falsity. Once you start taking results on faith rather than hard data you are introducing personal bias. Which isn’t to say that a scientist should be constrained from making inferences from incomplete data; in fact, this is exactly how science has and does progress. But an idea is not accepted as a functional theory until it has been exhaustively tested.
As for your specific claim that “animals, particularly humans, evolve instincts that are good for the group and hardly help the individual or their family, which simple natural selection can’t explain,” this is complete balderdash. A common but ignorant complaint about Darwinist natural selection is that it is all a fight-to-the-death, the-fittest-will-triumph theory that leaves no room for cooperative and altruistic instincts. In fact, from its very inception (The Origin of Species) Darwin clearly and frequently acknowledged that the interrelationships between organisms and species were complex and could not be characterized as strictly competitive. No modern evolutionary biologist would contradict the statement you’ve made above, and a whole field of kin selection and group selection involves the study of genetic selection in the context of a larger group of organisms. Even the competing Neo-Darwinist gene-centric theory of evolution (which breaks away from modern evolutionary synthesis to emphasize the specifically quantifiable interactions of genes and their expression in phenotypes in their carrier organism) does not disavow cooperative behavior, and in fact the (somewhat sketchy) concept of an extended phenotype adopts the notion that the genes in one organism might exist to support genetic success and diversity in a nominally competing organism.
In the case of the alleged phenomenon of “cold fusion,” yes, a detailed a priori explanation is required to accept it as a complete theory, insofar as we should be able to model this phenomena with existing electrochemical and physical laws. The fact that no one outside of a bad Val Kilmer movie has been able to put together a working theory of this supposed behavior, compounded by the inability of experimenters to reliably replicate the phenomenon and produce a definitive, measurable amount of energy that could not possibly come from experimental error or another source says that either the theory is bogus or that some kind of as-yet totally inexplicable behavior is occurring which will shake the pillars of science. So yes, to accept the latter, we would insist upon an extraordinary grade of evidence.
Stranger
And it’s not just us modern folk who are extra skeptical, either. Just Google the hoops Pasteur had to jump through to prove the extraordinary claim that germs don’t spontaneously generate.
Let’s just make it clear that you’re asking me to provide a citation on an opinion.
But, OK. Here’s an example that springs to mind:
(yes, it’s not particularly recent, but it does include an example where a fairly mundane issue about how high cats can or cannot jump, was equated to ‘extraordinary’ claims such as the existence of ghosts)
No doubt I could find more if the search function wasn’t so badly crippled, and if I could really be bothered.
(And your reply here really is turning into a something more like an example of the sort of thing I’m talking about.)
[Moderator Warning]
Stranger, you should know that insulting other posters in GQ is not permitted. Let’s not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I was asking (politely) for you to point to an example of a particular incident from which you developed that opinion, to which you originally responded with a snarky but vacuous link. Then with the above thread (which I admit to only having skimmed the first page), which completely fails to make your point, to wit, one poster (Blake) makes an assertion that challenges common sense (that cats can’t make a standing jump of more than two feet, later adjusted to one meter), other posters request some kind of substantial evidence that defends the position, and the Blake failing to provide any convincing evidence. And if you can’t “really be bothered” to support your opinion with any sort of fact or evidence perhaps you’d be better off in another forum; you know, one of those with the name “opinion” in the title.
Sorry, too many words for you? Or just too many syllables?
I acknowledge that I violated forum rules and apologize. However, the poster at which it was directed made an intentionally baiting response of equal offense, if perhaps better veiled. If this is the caliber of exchange that is accepted in GQ I’ll express my disappointment and move on. In any case, I’ll withdraw from the thread.
Stranger
I think “you guys” are mixing up two different levels of “proof”.
Is there proof that cold fusion happens? Heck no.
Is there “proof” that something weird is going on? Maybe, at least enough for more research, particularly that this level of research is pretty darn cheap, makes for good practice for grad students, and has one hell of a payoff should it lead to anything “interesting”.
You are attributing far too complex and diverse a set of motives to me in this and the previous post.
I can’t be bothered to produce further examples - you can’t be bothered to read them fully - <shrug>
I’ve got a better idea.
Thank you for the apology. However, the best course to follow if you have a problem with another’s post is to report it rather than retaliate directly (or else take it to the Pit). I would point out that merely being irritating in GQ is not a warnable offense (would that it were); whereas an outright insult is.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Replace “proof” with “evidence” in both statements, and that’s about it. While there is evidence to support the hypothesis that something funny is going on, it could also support the hypothesis that the folks doing these experiments, due to a general lack of experience with the sorts of things that can go wrong in a lab, are just getting shoddy results.