Cold fusion/Pathological science

< Cold fusion

Content below was originally taken from: User:Enric Naval/pathological science.

Extracted from an old discussion at CF's talk page.

polywater comparison, sources, when, how and why

(Original context.)

Multiple sources comparing polywater to cold fusion:


pathological science sources

“ cold fusion got the denomination of pathological science after being compared to polywater by some guy from Toronto and "(if cold fusion is given the category of scientific death, it) passes into the history of failed scientific claims, and joins N-rays, polywater, and ESP" and compares it with w:Irving Langmuir's definition of pathological science 'Undead science', Bart Simon, 2002, Rutgers University Press. ”
“ "For most natural scientists now, the case for cold fusion is closed and the veredict unequivocal: 'pathological science'. Irving Langmuir's space for scientific fantasies was retrieved and put to cartographic use in dennouncing the claim and in castigating its pitchmen, Pons and Fleischmann, as the episode quickly entered the annals of science next to other illusions: N-rays, polywater and martian canals. It was hardly coincidence (...) that Physics Today chose to reprint Langmuir's 1953 talk in its October 1989 issue." (footnote 3 on page 184 gives another 4 books using comparisons from Langmuir, who talked about "sick" science, including N-rays, w:mitogenetic rays and ESP , before polywater was "discovered") Cultural Boundaries of Science, Thomas F. Gieryn, 1999, University of Chicago Press ”
“ This book analyzes how rethoric and humor were used to ridiculize cold fusion in "the short history of this controversy" Science, reason, and rhetoric, Henry Krips, J. E. McGuire, Trevor Melia, 1995, Univ of Pittsburgh Press. ”
“ Entirely discredited, the notion of cold fusion today denotes an infamous episode of sloppy science that chemists, especially, would prefer to forget Draw the lightning down, Michael B. Schiffer, Kacy L. Hollenback, Carrie L. Bell, 2003, University of California Press ”
“ "A literature review uncovered six distinctive indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: (1) presence of seminal papers(s), (2) rapid growth/decline in author frequency, (3) multi-disciplinary research, (4) epidemic growth/decline in journal publication frequency, (5) predominance of rapid communication journal publications, and (6) increased multi-authorship. These indicators were applied to journal publication data from two known failed information epidemics, Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion." "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006) ”
“ So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.

By late 1990 (...) The cold fusion controversy was effectively over.

But not cold fusion. Research has continued at a moderate level of activity right up to the present day. A good deal of the work has been published in non-mainstream journals (some created for the purpose) or electronically; but occasionally papers have appeared in prestigious locations, such as the 1993 paper by Pons and Fleischmanns on calorimetry, which was accepted by Physics Letters A.

Subsequent claims have been almost completely ignored by the scientific mainstream, and the popular media has generally followed suit, with a few exceptions. Compilations of this work may be found on a number of websites, notably the LENR-CANR (low energy nuclear reactions/chemically assisted nuclear reactions) site,[39] which features bibliographic material and summaries, written from the strong proponents' point of view. A quite different (and intriguing) perspective may be found in a recent book by the sociologist of science Bart Simon, who proposes a new model for understanding how and why research persists beyond the point where the vast majority of the community considers the field finished: he calls it Undead Science.

Two somewhat less fanciful, but rather contradictory, conceptual models have been offered for the consideration of scientific controversies: one from an internal point of view and one more external. In fact they both seem to fit the cold fusion saga pretty well. The first is that of pathological science, (...) A quite different perspective [meaning the second conceptual model] has been proposed by the sociologist of science Harry Collins. The Experimenter's Regress, which was introduced in a discussion of the search for gravity waves, argues that it is impossible to separate questions about the existence or non-existence of a novel phenomenon from questions about the validity of the experiments designed to detect it:(...)

(...)any negative finding can always be (and has been) challenged as incorrectly performed, such as claims that the wrong kind of electrode was used, etc.

The fact that these dueling descriptors are both operative has much to do with the continued survival of cold fusion research - if only as a ghostly entity, as Simon would have it. How should we view the more recent findings in light of the earlier, substantially discredited work? Pons and Fleischmann, and others, made some rather major errors that led to reports of large effects - excess heat exceeding 1000 %, high levels of neutrons or tritium - so a skeptic comfortably concludes that the generally much smaller effects now claimed are the result of more subtle errors. Conversely, proponents can reasonably argue that their later experimental designs do take previous criticisms into account, and should not be automatically assumed to be tainted by the same old mistakes; but they never get the opportunity to defend themselves, since nobody even bothers to criticize them. A (rather plaintive) letter to this effect, published in Chemical & Engineering News in 2003,[45] elicited no response at all.

Another factor in the post-mortem survival of cold fusion has been its decidedly chimerical nature. (...) At least some of these reports are indisputably erroneous, but what does that imply about others? For example, the philosopher of science William McKinney, in arguing that one can escape from the Experimenter's Regress on the basis of objective analysis of experiments, suggested that the unequivocal demonstration of the artifactual -ray signature (thus undermining the claim for neutrons) was the real knockout blow for cold fusion.[48] However, cold fusion researchers are committed to no theory, so (on their account) excess heat need not be tied to neutrons. Since nobody has seriously claimed to understand the phenomena on the basis of any unifying theory, there need not be any real links between the various types of phenomena studied. From a strictly logical point of view, every individual experiment would need to be evaluated on its own merits: if one set of claims is debunked to everyone's satisfaction, that does not necessarily disprove another.

Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44 (13): 1916–22. doi:10.1002/anie.200462084. http://www.uaf.edu/chem/481-482-692-Sp06/pdf/labinger-1.pdf. 

 ”


So, what the reliable sources say is that cold fusion is discredited, that the controversy is over (was over already in late 1990!), that the attempts to compare it to polywater/N-rays/ESP/etc. were sucessfull and killed the reputation of cold fusion (in about six months?), etc.

Mind you, this is not a description of the field itself, it's a description how it was painted by some and how the idea caught, and how it's still considered by scientists the same thing as back then in 1989 after the dust settled (a discredited science).

is the controvesy really over? sources

(original context)

It explains how Lewis and Koonin used humour on their presentation to sway the audience on their side and accuse P. and F. of breaking scientific rules (see start of page 173, and pages 170-174). This doesn't change the fact that the audience was swayed, that's it, that the controversy is over and that cold fusion now stands as pathological science. See:

“ "On the one hand, many experts say that cold fusion is dead, but on the other hand we can always find scientists who will disagree. Latour has left us with the knotty problem of figuring out how many dissenting experts it takes to keep a controversy alive." Undead Science, pag 11 ”

I think this is enough material to write up something on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DOE 2004 says nothing about the field being accepted or about any controversys existing or not. Use sources that actually deal with the topic:

It's still not accepted, it's discredited, there is a small resurgence of interest on the topic, it's not clear if it's a real revival or just a perceived flare up or a temporal thing, and there is only a die-hard core of scientists still pursuing it.

These secondary sources leave clear that the CF field was discredited and only a few scientists remained in it.

sources added later

This article is issued from Wikiversity - version of the Wednesday, March 11, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.