| Revision as of 00:55, 18 March 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,852 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 48) (bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:56, 19 March 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,852 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 48) (botNext edit → |
| Line 91: |
Line 91: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=180 |units=days |index= /Archive index |auto=short }} |
|
{{archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=180 |units=days |index= /Archive index |auto=short }} |
|
|
|
|
== Essay by Huw Price == |
|
|
{{Archive top|result= ] essay, not useful. ] (]) 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Science philosopher ] has an on the politics and sociology of cold fusion, in which he claims research is hindered by a ''reputation trap'' that can also have negative results in other fields: "People outside the trap won't go near it, for fear of falling in.... People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Price |first1=Huw |author1-link=Huw Price |title=The cold fusion horizon |url=https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion |website=] |language=en |date=21 December 2015}}</ref> His views may be an important perspective worth including, to contextualize and clarify broader issues (please read the whole article, I'm not necessarily advocating the particular quote be included). See additional journalistic context on Price's view and the state of cold fusion studies by science writer Clive Cookson.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cookson |first1=Clive |title=Thirty years later, the cold fusion dream is still alive |url=https://www.ft.com/content/4233196a-82cb-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b |work=] |date=4 June 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's the old excuse pseudoscientists always used: "we do not have any evidence because scientists will not look for it to avoid damaging their reputations". Not very relevant here becuase it is universally applicable wherever there is no evidence for something. --] (]) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Do you think Huw Price is a pseudoscientist, or otherwise unqualified to comment on this topic? ] (]) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sounds like a paraphrase of David Goodstein<ref>{{cite journal |
|
|
|mode = cs2 |
|
|
|last = Goodstein |
|
|
|first = David |
|
|
|title = Whatever happened to cold fusion? |
|
|
|journal = American Scholar |
|
|
|volume = 63 |
|
|
|issue = 4 |
|
|
|year = 1994 |
|
|
|pages = 527–541 |
|
|
|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html |
|
|
|access-date = 25 May 2008 |
|
|
|issn = 0003-0937 |
|
|
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080516200325/http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Edg/fusion_art.html |
|
|
|archive-date = 16 May 2008 |
|
|
|url-status = dead |
|
|
}}</ref>, who we already cover in the article. See the quote referring to a 'pariah field'. There's no need to rehash this concept every time someone new repeats it.--] (]) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not a scientist and unqualified. Philosophers of science ususally don't have meaningful contributions to specific scientific questions because their technical understanding is too shallow - they literally can't look beyond who has what position, into the actual reasoning that goes into it, because it is all gibberish to them. Instead, they look for reasons they can understand, i.e. sociological ones. Many of them can't even name any properties of science that would distinguish it from bullshit, or even care about the difference. Price seems to be one of those. --] (]) 05:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Credible justification for this, please! Anyway, I'll put the question to him and see what he comes up with. But let's have your credible justification first. And while we're about it, what are your own qualifications? ] (]) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I suggest you take a look at https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Huw-Price-Times-Arrow1997.pdf, and see if you still want to claim that Price doesn't understand physics. ] (]) 09:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I am not claiming that {{tq|Price doesn't understand physics}}, I am saying that he has no formal qualification. But that is not relevant for my reasoning, it was just a response to a question luring me onto a tangent. His essay appeared in ], which is not an RS for scientific questions. If he had anything interesting to say, one could overlook that in a pinch. But, as I said, it's just the usual I-am-being-suppressed cliché and not worth including. Otherwise, every article about something that does not work could quote people saying, esentially, "no wonder that we have not yet found out that it does work, because scientists avoid researching it!" --] (]) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Such a biased perspective! I warn people to take care regarding Misplaced Pages articles because of the way they get taken over by ''genuinely'' unqualified people (which Price is not). --] (]) 13:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you can ask him whether he still is a Rossi fan seven years after penning the paen? How long till he admits he was wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
Reader: They split the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I apologise for not understanding what I presume was intended to be a joke (re splitting the bill, that is). But, anyway, in response Price suggests you look at . --] (]) 17:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::"About Rossi, I am happy to concede that he hasn’t made it to the finishing line, even at a modest 50% credence. I think there is still some reason to think that he may have something, based in part on claimed replications by far less colourful figures. But there is also evidence of dishonesty, especially in his dealings with his US backer, Industrial Heat.... My bets were settled in mid-2019. Our three judges, all physicists, agreed with my opponents that neither Brillouin nor Rossi had demonstrated evidence of LENR above 50% probability." Lol. ] (]) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 1992 NYTimes about cold fusion in Japan == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive top|reason= The source is already used in ]. ] (]) 16:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a bit of perspective on what sort of coverage would merit inclusion in this article would be helpful. In 1992, Japan began a focused $20 million(in 1992 dollars) program that, crucially, was covered by the New York Times.<ref>{{Citation |title=Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan | author=Andrew J. Pollack | publisher = The New York Times | date=November 17, 1992 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/cold-fusion-derided-in-us-is-hot-in-japan.html}}</ref> Given this coverage by a major mainstream press outlet, it has enough ] that it is included as a single sentence in the body of the article. If this new request for proposals becomes a program with similar coverage in mainstream press I would support a similar amount of coverage in the article. Without such press coverage or similar secondary sourcing, it doesn't merit similar inclusion. --] (]) 00:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Reference talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:I see editor Ixocatus has been busy closing discussions again. I wonder what right he has to do this all by himself? What's the official situation there? |
|
|
|
|
|
::Anyway, when I have time I will be giving my views regarding Wickedpedia on my own talk page. ] (]) ] (]) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Noren}} See section ]. Pollack already mentioned. ] (]) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article issues and classification == |
|
== Article issues and classification == |
It's a bit silly the way some people don't want the reference to cold fusion being in a video game to be included, methinks. But I'm not bothered at all, it's just a pity that my time taken adding the link to it was wasted. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
