|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Being an academic, I regularly attend seminars on topics that may not be interesting to anyone else on the planet. Prior to the talk, an abstract is sent out by the speaker to give us an insight into what he/she will be discussing. A good abstract should be no more than an essential summary of what the speaker will discuss; it is usually no more than a paragraph in length, and is often tersely worded. The rare exceptions to this length requirement usually aren't the best at conveying the essential information. For a seminar I attended recently, the abstract violated this "rule" by weighing in at a whopping four paragraphs. However, even considering this excessiveness, the opening sentence is what really drove me over the edge. The abstract began with the phrase, "One presents a critical analysis..." (Emphasis added).
In the normal course of scientific writing, it is expected there will be a sense of detachment between the experiment and the experimenter. The data is king. After the manner of collection has been accepted as a valid method of demonstrating what is intended, the data drives any and all interpretation - period. The experimenter is expected to be a dispassionate, passive observer, and this shows up in scientific writing as an excessive use of the third person. However, by using "one" as a pronoun indicating himself, this speaker has completely detached himself from even his own presentation!
As I mentioned, I understand the necessity of detaching yourself from your results. The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.) In my own writing, I tend to use the pronoun "we," as it provides a sense of detachment. However, I still identify it as my own work without compromising its independence. So, referring to yourself as "one" seems disingenuous and completely out of place, especially in the context of a presentation abstract.
Years ago, while I was still an undergrad, I heard about a movement in the scientific community to improve the mechanics of scientific writing. One of the suggestions was to eliminate many of the bizarre contortions using the third person imposes upon the authors. I am firmly in this camp. While authors must be somewhat dispassionate in their writings, there is no need to completely separate ourselves from our own work in such an egregious manner.
Add a Comment (10)
Email This
Message Author
You wrote:
"As I mentioned, I understand the necessity of detaching yourself from your results. The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.)"
What do you mean by this? Cold fusion researchers are objective; their experiments stand on their own merits, and I have never heard anyone discuss their personalities. Roughly 2,000 professional scientists have replicated cold fusion and published replications in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. They include many distinguished people, such as members of the Atomic Energy Commissions of India and France, but they are all, as Fleischmann puts it, "painfully conventional scientists."
Perhaps you are under the impression that cold fusion was a mistake or that it was not replicated. If so, you are completely wrong, and I suggest you review the literature before commenting. You will find 600 full-text papers and bibliography of ~3,000 papers on this research, including ~500 peer-reviewed, positive papers, here:
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
Sorry, but his comment made perfect sense.
The mainstream physics community doesn't accept the conjectures surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. You, as a representative of a minority dissent group, think otherwise. But the statement that his comment "makes no sense" is a lie - you present your claims as if they're accepted by the community, when they're not.
For those of us who aren't physicists, the responsible interpretation of this situation is that the mainstream community is right and you're wrong. In that context, wyldeling's statement is entirely sensible.
Now, it happens that he is a physicist, and presumably capable of evaluating the data for himself. Personally, I'd be happy to hear what he has to say about the stuff on your site, if he feels it's worth his time to review. To me, it looks like a pretty much archetypal pseudo-science site. Lots of strident claims with ambiguous data.
Was this person from Europe? I ask because many European languages use the third person impersonal very often, even when we in the English language usually would not. This is especially so within the sphere of academics. Perhaps there was something lost in translation.
Also, I understand what you say about science being heartless and excessively detached. Steven Hawking is the most creative science author that I have read. You hardly see a single usage of "one," and he presents the scientific journey as that of every inquisative mind. Instead of "one," like yourself, I think he prefers the "we" variant.
I susepct that this dynamic is a result not only of modern science, but also of modernity in general. Heidegger said that those who use this third person impersonal are actually living inauthentically. He went on to say that we humans are so used to being treated as objects today, that we treat language in the same manner. We speak or write at times with little regard for the words of which we make use or for their significance/function. Language has thus lost much of its poetic, meaningful quality.
There is an impoverishment of many modern languages at work involving, for instance, the near loss of certain verb tenses, the narrowing, simplification, and phasing out of vocabulary in lieu of slang, a growing distinction between literary and spoken usage, a lack of courtesy in our everyday parlance, etc. We live in a strange age indeed. It seems that much of language today is being "abused" as you say.
You wrote:
"The mainstream physics community doesn't accept the conjectures surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment."
That is incorrect. The mainstream physics community is divided on this question. Roughly half do accept the results, and half do not. This estimate is based on the DoE review board opinions, and on a public opinion poll of scientists and engineers in Japan. It is also based on the fact that many prominent peer-reviewed journals publish papers on this subject, especially in Japan, Italy and China, albeit not as often in the U.S.
I believe that the subset of physicists who have read the literature on cold fusion overwhelmingly agrees the effect is real. I base that on the comments and responses of the readers at LENR-CANR. They have visited 870,000 times and downloaded 1.2 million papers. Hundreds have told me they are convinced, and only a handful expressed doubts. Even if we assume that only friendly readers will contact me, it is still difficult to imagine that readers have downloaded all those papers, and that many readers download 10 or more papers, yet most of them consider these papers to be invalid nonsense. Why would they bother?
People who oppose cold fusion often claim that "a large majority" agree with them, but they have no objective evidence to bolster this assertion. There are, of course, thousands of vituperative attacks against cold fusion, which you can easily find on Google, but this tells you nothing about the opinions of experts. Nearly every attack on cold fusion that I have read was written by someone who knew nothing about the research. People who have not read the literature and cannot make a solid technical argument to support their opinion no right to an opinion. This is science, not American Idol.
". . . you present your claims as if they're accepted by the community, when they're not."
These are not my claims. They are published by professional scientists in peer-reviewed journals, in hundreds of papers. That, by definition, means they are accepted -- at least by the editors and reviewers. There have been about a dozen peer-reviewed papers by skeptics that try to disprove these claims, but in my opinion they have no merit. You can read some of them at LENR-CANR and decide for yourself; see Jones and Morrison, for example.
"For those of us who aren't physicists, the responsible interpretation of this situation is that the mainstream community is right and you're wrong. In that context, wyldeling's statement is entirely sensible."
A physicist has no special qualifications to judge public opinion. You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion. A physicist who has not read the literature on cold fusion is no more qualified to judge the technical issues than the cop on the corner is. A physicist who offers an opinion without a solid technical reason is not acting as a physicist.
"Now, it happens that he is a physicist, and presumably capable of evaluating the data for himself."
If he has evaluated the data, and he has a good technical reason to doubt the results, he should publish a paper describing his reasons. Otherwise, he has no business claiming that the results are wrong. All views must be held to the same standard of academic rigor. A negative opinion does not get a free ride. That is why there have been so few skeptical papers that attempt to disprove cold fusion -- because the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. To disprove cold fusion you must first show that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and then you have to show why x-ray film and mass spectrometers do not work, and why tritium measured at a million times background is not real.
"Personally, I'd be happy to hear what he has to say about the stuff on your site, if he feels it's worth his time to review. To me, it looks like a pretty much archetypal pseudo-science site."
You are saying that papers published by Los Alamos, SRI and BARC are pseudo-science? Of course there are many less convincing papers, but it is a library, not a journal, so we are open to everyone -- including the skeptics, whose claims are archetypal pseudo-science, as you say.
In reference to 'cold fusion' I would suggest that any critics write a paper summarizing why they feel the cold fusion related papers from Los Alamos, BARC, Sandia, Berkley, US Navy, foreign companies and agencies, etc and other institutions of higher learning worldwide are wrong by citing specific examples of why the experimental results presented are ..plain and simply wrong as they see it. Can it get any simpler than that for a critic (with any backbone) interested in the scientific process to do?
Isn't this what Science is all about? One could argue that this is not to be done because the work presented is not capable of being published in a reputable journal, but then I'de have to say again that they haven't read the literature 'in depth' to understand why it might not have been published more formally? Possibly lacking a particular methodology?, analytical technique? Instrumentation approach?, etc. Specifics should be cited in criticisms. And, also remember that in today's networked world it is increasingly more and more common to publish results is an open web format ..just look at the Public Library of Science (PLoS) for a good example of such an open public library, or the Cornell archives on-line. Even reputable sites such as Nature, Science, Royal Chemical Society and the APS are experimenting with such on-line publishing approaches (some more than others).
There are many ways for critics (and believers) of a particular area of science to engage in a healthy dialogue (key words) following the scientific method ..courtesy of the modern world wide web - something mankind now has as a tool that Newton, Leibnitz, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Einstein, Fermi, and many others would probably drool over as a means to publish.
Have we scientists taken full advantage of these blessings in this modern era to engage in a proper scientific dialogue? Hardly. As one example of how fas the world is changing see the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI
In summary, if critics refuse to express their views citing point by point why an experiment or methodology is incorrect, or just using blanket statements to whitewash a subject deserving more detailed discussion, then I can only assume : 1) the critics do not have an understanding of the materials they are attempting to criticize as they try to filter from vast amounts of information now available on the web, 2) the subject is genuinely growing and large amounts of evidence for the science behind a subject is now evident across several fields, making simple arguments to the contrary much more difficult to maintain. 3) Their field of interest is so specialized that they are the next scientific dinosaurs about to become extinct.
Anything short of rational, measured scientific dialogue to me indicates that critics instead prefer simple flame throwing of adhominem remarks in open web sites (such as this one) with no care for science research at all, but possibly protecting old paradigms being shattered before their eyes as time marches onward to their unfortunate ignorance of a changing world.
Simple huh?
- Bob C
San Antonio, TX
There have been several posts from the Cold Fusion Community (1, 2, and 3) that I'd like to address.
First of all, thank you for participating at Omninerd, we appreciate all such participation, and we hope you'll stick around. I wish it could have been under less acrimonious circumstances, though.
I believe my statement that caused the uproar was
The experiment must be able to stand on its own merit, and should not have to be propped up by the personalities of the experimenters. (Cold fusion comes to mind.)
As pointed out, the reference to cold fusion research being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters was an opinion, and an unverified one at that. For that, I must apologize. It is inexcusable for a scientist, or a human being for that matter, to spout off opinions without the proper backing. I had not performed the necessary due diligence, and I am sorry.
However, comment 2 made the statement:
You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion.
To which, I must disagree. My first real encounter with cold fusion occurred at the APS Centennial meeting where I was handed a copy of Infinite Energy. At the time it read as if it was science by press release. Upon recent reflection, it seems more like a fringe community (deservedly, or not) that was desperately trying to gain recognition in the community at large, in a similar vane to missionaries handing out pamphlets to passerby. And, the cold fusion community still seems to be operating in this mode as indicated by the speed and vituperative nature of the response I have gotten. Simply put, if I were to ask my adviser, or any other member of my department tomorrow, I am fairly sure they would express deep skepticism about cold fusion.
My initial comment of cold fusion being propped up by the personalities of the experimenters is still somewhat true, but in a much different context than I first understood it. In the 2001 April meeting (I think), Scott Chubb talked about the debacle involving the handling of cold fusion within the community at large and within the cold fusion community. In a summary of his talk, he said
1. Normal scientific discussion about CF ended at a very early stage, 2. The breakdown of Normal scientific discussion not only has not been widely accepted outside the field, but 3. Although the reasons for this breakdown are not clear, the failure by particular individuals or institutions to be held accountable for past actions has been largely responsible for this problem. Implicit in these assertions is an obvious point. Cold Fusion was and is a risky form of science. Discussions about CF have ceased to be normal for precisely this reason. (Ed.: quotes replaced by emphasis)
Chubb goes on to say that most scientists are unaware of the advances that have been made to satisfy the early critics. Clearly, rational scientific discourse has, at least in the recent past, taken a back seat to other less refined forms of communication. So, in a sense, the personalities of those involved have influenced how this topic has been approached, but clearly not in the sense I originally intended.
As to not acting as a physicist, I am able to offer as my only defense that I am human and I am a product of my training, as much as anyone. My training suggests that the Fleischmann-Pons effect should not occur, except under high pressure/temperature conditions where the wavefunction overlap is sufficient for tunneling to occur. And, having not read the literature, I have fallen into the trap that most would have fallen into: I was relying on the opinions of others whom I trusted. With the APS publishing hundreds of articles a month, it is very easy to fall into that trap, and I will be more careful and less flippant in the future.
As to not having a backbone, I will eventually read the papers on LENR-CANR. But, it will not be within the next six to twelve months, so I will happily flop around in grad school until that point.
You wrote:
"> You and this author have no clue what the mainstream science community thinks about cold fusion.
To which, I must disagree. My first real encounter with cold fusion occurred at the APS Centennial meeting . . ."
I do not think you can measure the views of the mainstream science based on this one observation, at one meeting. It would be like trying to judge support for cold fusion by attending the APS cold fusion sessions. (The ~50 to 100 people who show up are mostly supporters.) You need a larger sample of people, and a questionnaire of some sort.
Actually, I think it would be good to limit respondents to people who have read 5 or more papers. You would not ask an electrochemist about plasma fusion or AIDS treatment, so you should not ask random people from other disciplines about cold fusion.
". . . I was handed a copy of Infinite Energy. At the time it read as if it was science by press release. Upon recent reflection, it seems more like a fringe community (deservedly, or not) that was desperately trying to gain recognition in the community at large . . ."
I think it would be more accurate to say they were desperately trying to get people to realize they had already gained recognition. I think it is foolish to try to convince people at the APS, which is the locus of opposition to cold fusion. The Science Policy Administrator there has said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits" The ACS and other organizations are more open to the idea.
"Simply put, if I were to ask my adviser, or any other member of my department tomorrow, I am fairly sure they would express deep skepticism about cold fusion."
Perhaps. Try it! But you should ask a larger sample of several hundred scientists before drawing a conclusion, and as I said it might be a good idea to ask them to read papers first, or to limit them to people with relevant qualifications.
"My training suggests that the Fleischmann-Pons effect should not occur, except under high pressure/temperature conditions where the wavefunction overlap is sufficient for tunneling to occur."
I do NOT understand why people even bring this up!! Yes, of course, the results are unexpected and they appear to violate theory. This was obvious to Fleischmann, Pons and every other researcher. Did you suppose they are unaware of this fact? They didn't notice? Every review of cold fusion begins by pointing out that the ratio of helium to heat is the same as plasma fusion, but the tritium and neutrons are usually 10 million times lower than plasma fusion. That is the unexplained mystery at the heart of the problem. Because they have observed the effect in hundreds of experiments, researchers assume the theory needs revision, or reinterpretation.
". . . I will eventually read the papers on LENR-CANR."
Good! That's the thing to do.
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
Regarding this quote from Scott Chubb about the many debacles of cold fusion:
"Although the reasons for this breakdown are not clear, the failure by particular individuals or institutions to be held accountable for past actions has been largely responsible for this problem."
I am pretty sure the individuals and institutions he has in mind are opposed to cold fusion. The skeptics have caused this debacle, and they should be held responsible. The institutions that have opposed cold fusion most vociferously include the American Physical Society, MIT, the DoE, and the Scientific American. I doubt that Chubb thinks that Fleischmann and Pons are to blame for any of this. (Beaudette, on the other hand, does apportion a small share of the blame to them.)
I can't speak for Chubb, but I know him well, and I am pretty sure that is how he sees it. I am sure that is how most cold fusion researchers feel. For example, the late Julian Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers. He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote:
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf
I agreed with him 100%. There is no conspiracy against cold fusion, but there are hundreds of angry scientists who know nothing about it, and yet who claim it was never replicated, it is fraud, the researchers are lunatics, et cetera, ad nauseam. They also claim that they represent "the vast majority of scientists," but they are wrong about that, too. Unfortunately, many of these people are influential, and they have influenced public opinion, and prevent cold fusion researchers from responding in the mainstream press. Here is an example of skeptical distortions by the Scientific American:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
I agree with the author. Awkward phrasing just to get around using a personal pronoun defeats the purpose of avoiding using personal pronouns. If a sentence is awkward, there is always a better way to rewrite it.
Personally I like the way Scientific American magazine gets around this personal pronoun conundrum. When necessary, authors of articles tend to refer to "the author" or "the authors". The magazine is made of articles about science and not actual scientific papers, but I think "the authors" would be acceptable when necessary in technical writing too.
Someone mentioned Steven Hawking uses personal pronouns. This is perfectly acceptable and expected in popular science writing which is a way to explain scientific research to a general audience. I bet he never uses personal pronouns in his research papers.
RSS
Human Element by gnifyus :: NR6 :: on 04 October 2007
Not being an academic I find this post most interesting because, though not exactly the same, some parallels can be drawn in "corporate speak", or the way in which certain things have been presented in my past experience at a large company. One of the first things I picked up on from attending various production meetings was not only the removal of self from any remarks made, but also the omission of any person at all as if all statements were pulled from the ether. An example of this phrasing might be; "The question was asked if the new schedule will be effective this Monday or next Monday." Instead of, "John was wondering if the new schedule will be… (etc)". Or, "It's been made clear by some that the new procedure is inadequate", instead of who in particular was able to make it clear.
I think this sort of 'protocol' is driven from a different place though. It has more to do with not being blamed for something, or not putting yourself or someone else in a position of being responsible for any given statement. Once in a while a Vice President or Director would ask, "Who said that?", and you could see all the faces at the table change a shade of color as the safe little 'protocol' was broken.
I once found myself laughing to myself when at one meeting someone began their statement with, "The question was asked….", when I knew darn well it was that very person asking "the question" for the first time.
It's funny and sort of ironic that this sort of thing actually bugs some of us enough to, in wyldeling's case, want to write about it, or in mine to remember it after 15 years. To me it shows we still want to be human even though some of our man- made disciplines call for the human element to be removed from view.