QUOTE(mikeu @ Mon 14th February 2011, 7:33pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:20pm)
As to cold fusion, you did make some comments on one of the subpages, with some sensible questions, but I responded and you never followed up.
If I ever feel a burning desire to waste copious amounts of my free time on a worthless endeavor...
Sure is worthless if you learn nothing. Looks like you have already spent some time. With obsolete tertiary sources, at least one.
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 14th February 2011, 12:20pm)
Just so you understand the "start" of cold fusion.
Oh, I have numerous sources
to help me understand that.
Great. Thanks. As to those sources: Undead science
was the first book I read when I came across the abusive blacklisting of lenr-canr.org that got me started on cold fusion. It was also the first time I bought a book to research a Wikipedia topic. See, I had the technical background to understand the field, I'd seen it come down in 1989, and had assumed, with about everyone else, that it had been shown to be artifact, error.
I was wrong. That never happened. Try to find the "smoking gun," which happened with N-rays and polywater. This is why both DoE reviews, in 1989 and 2004, recommended more research. The mystery remained.
The most recent source you have listed is Ackerman (2006), which was published shortly after the nadir of cold fusion publishing frequency (in mainstream journals). Since the nadir, publication rate has quadrupled. Since 2005, there have been nineteen positive reviews, secondary sources, on cold fusion, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. See Cold fusion/Recent sources
on WV. I've bolded the reviews.
You'll note I listed Ackerman. Ackerman assumes CF as a "failed information epidemic," see the Britz comment on Ackerman
(first on the page) (Britz is a skeptical electrochemist who has maintained an independent bibliography of the field.) The WV page I cite also uses the Britz database.
I think you believe I'm out to lunch on cold fusion, Mike, but ...
Well, tbh, I believe that you are out to lunch in a number of respects. It is not just limited to cold fusion.
Indeed you do. One lunch at a time, okay?
On the subject of cold fusion as "pathological science," and to balance Ackerman, see Bauer (2002)
Looking at Pathological science
, a mistake, I see a beautiful piece of ad hominem argument, Bauer is identified as a "controversial advocate of AIDS denialism,." Gee, if I'd known that, I'd never have read anything written by him, and I'd have disinfected my computer. Unsourced. In the lede. Inserted by IP editor, 24 July, 2010.
People who should have known better have edited the article since then. Yes, Bauer has written a book about AIDS, and might reasonably be classified as a "denialist," but .... it's an ad hominem argument, impeaching his work where he might better know what he's talking about, because of stuff he's written, outside his field, when he's long retired.... Typical Wikipediocy.
Anyway, the definitive review at this point is Storms, "Review of Cold fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften (October, 2010). Any questions? Preprint copy.
I'm mentioned in it (I helped edit it), which brings me a surprising amount of joy.
For wikipedia studies, CF is interesting because it's a great example of how the policies and guidelines were ignored by a powerful faction of editors, and how the damage from that continues. Supposedly, recent secondary sources of equal quality supersede older sources, and supposedly, in science, secondary source reviews published in mainstream journals are the gold standard. Not if a Wikipedia editor thinks the author is "fringe"! Publisher? Who cares about the publisher?
(There is no conflict between the scientific secondary sources, because CF was never actually debunked in such sources. Rather, there were failed replications, later well-explained as due to uncontrolled variables, that became very well known. Predictable.)
And ArbComm rulings were simply ignored. And I simply got tired of the incredible complexity it took to challenge this stuff. About the last thing I did was to get lenr-canr.org finally delisted from the global blacklist, the action that was part of what got me involved in the first place. For writing "too much" there (on meta!) -- if I'd left the request as a short one, well, it had been denied again, per Moulton's Law -- I was determined to somehow be violating the article probation on Cold fusion, and so a kindly admin renewed my topic ban.
Getting it delisted didn't help Wikipedia, because JzG continued to remove all links to lenr-canr.org, in spite of being troutslapped for his involvement before. He continued to give the same arguments that had been rejected by, not only ArbComm, but consensus, ever time they were carefully considered. And rejected by the meta administrator who delisted it. But it makes it easier for the other wikis.
Article probation for Cold fusion was intended to apply to all sides. I believe I was the only application of it, at JzG's instigation, and, being the only editor, interested in cold fusion, with the skill to take a case to ArbComm, or AE, there it went!