18) It is not pseudoscience
Ludwik Kowalski
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043.
Return to the clickable list of items
Look at the titles of these recent books; they are revealing.
1) C. Beaudette, "Excess Heat. Why Cold Fusion
Research Prevailed." Concord, NH, 2000.
2) R.L. Park "Voodoo Science: The Road from
Foolishness to Fraud," Oxford University
Press, New York, 2000.
One reviewer wrote: “Professor Park does more than debunk, he crucifies... You'll never again waste time or your money on astrologers, quantum healers, homeopaths, spoon benders, perpetual motion merchants, or alien-abduction fantasists.”
But isn't "cold fusion" different from the above? I do not exclude the possibility that some "cold fusion" claims may have been fraudulent; con artists are naturally attracted to scientific controversies. But most of those who do research in the AE area ("anomalous energy" is a better term than "cold fusion') are likely to be honest. In fact, I suspect that Fleischmann and Pons might become Nobel laureates.
What makes the AE area different from voodoo science?
1) A large number (several hundred) of cooperating scientist
in about 10 countries are actively involved.
2) Two Nobel laureates (Teller and Schwinger) were theorizing
about AE at one time. Have they given up? I do not know.
3) Nearly all of the AE researchers have doctorates; many of
them are (or were) associated with highly prestigious
laboratories and universities. Many of them, including
Fleischmann, are (or were) recognized leaders of disciplines.
4) These researchers organize one international conference
each year and make results of their findings known to all
who are interested.
5) Their methodology of validation is not different from that
practiced by so-called "mainstream" scientists.
They experiment, they hypothesize, they change their
minds, they try to construct theories, they publish.
6) They are not secretive; they want to be heard and be
criticized scientifically.
7) They want to have access to all mainstream journals
in order to benefit from the peer-review process.
8) They want their proposals to be fairly evaluated by
NSF, DOE and other granting agencies.
9) They are highly unhappy about the "excommunication"
of the entire field caused by "heretical" mistakes made
by those who announced the discovery in 1989.
Is it not obvious that claims made by “astrologers, quantum healers, homeopaths, spoon benders, perpetual motion merchants, or alien-abduction fantasists” are completely different from those made by AE scientists?
Return to the clickable list of items