RE: Language These Days

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

Star This to Save in Your Profile