It Can't Be, Therefore It Isn't
"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to
be true."-Buddha
Mainstream science is clearly overwhelmed by
NHE. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the American scientific community,
where the mere mention of "excess energy" is often met with vitriol.
In the face of mounting positive NHE evidence, mainstream scientists show
a blatant disregard for the scientific process. Instead of adjusting their
world view, they adopt an "it can't be, therefore it isn't" stance.
This self-induced blindness is evident in statements compiled by cold fusion
researchers over the years, a few of which are included here as examples
of the irrational, emotional response mainstream scientists have to a phenomenon
that "just can't be."
In 1991, Ronald G. Ballinger, an Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering
at MIT, reacted to the growing number of positive cold fusion results with
a surprisingly unscientific statement: "It would not matter to me
if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments
that see excess heat," Ballinger sneered, "putting the 'Cold
Fusion' issue on the same page with [accepted theoreticians' work] is analogous
to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible."(1)
Though extreme, Dr. Ballinger's response is
not uncommon. An impartial observer will find his knee-jerk reaction unsettling
and ironic, for the scientist's current beliefs were undoubtedly shaped
from the viewing of many investigations' results. This is, after all, an
integral part of the scientific method. What prompted the scientist to
ignore all of his previous scientific training, recklessly preserving for
posterity his dogmatic, under-informed viewpoint? The impartial observer
is forced to conclude that Professor Ballinger simply refuses to let himself
believe that cold fusion could ever be real.
Dr. Ballinger's colleague, MIT Physics Emeritus
Martin Deutsch, also gave his expert opinion on cold fusion in the May
6, 1989 issue of Science News: "In one word it's garbage." Anyone
who can sum up the mystery of cold fusion in one word is either a genius
or someone who has already made up his mind based on preconceived notions.
It is safe to say that Deutsch falls into the latter category.
Caltech Professor Steven Koonin also recorded
his opinion of NHE for future historians, who may someday recount the reaction
of the current paradigm in the twilight of the fossil fuel age: "My
conclusion is that the experiments are just wrong and that we are suffering
from the incompetence and delusion of Doctors Pons and Fleischmann…It's
all very well to theorize how cold fusion in a palladium cathode might
take place…one could also theorize about how pigs would behave if
they had wings. But pigs don't have wings."(2)
Had Professor Koonin simply reserved judgment
for a few years, he would have seen hundreds of subsequent excess energy
reports supporting Pons and Fleischmann's original experiment, ensuring
his place in history as a prescient pioneer in a technology destined to
change the world. Instead, he will go down as one of the thousands of "defenders
of the status quo."
No phenomenon in recent history has caused
more normally sensible scientists to completely abandon all logic than
that of cold fusion. Such shortsighted statements, frequently uttered by
today's leading authorities, demonstrate how preconceived notions can cause
anyone to take leave of his senses. Consider a statement made by Professor
Robert Park of the University of Maryland:
"Most screwy ideas turn out to be screwy
ideas…[cold fusion] was preposterous to begin with."(3)
Professor Park also labeled the First International
Conference on Cold Fusion, which he did not attend, "a seance of true
believers." One cannot help but ask: does a willingness to engage
in inquisitive, rational discussion of scientifically obtained and verified
experimental findings constitute participation in a seance? The phrase
"true believer," which implies blind acceptance of inaccurate
information and a certain ignorance of the facts, might more aptly describe
the cold fusion skeptics…
The scientific prejudice exhibited by those
like Professors Koonin and Park also manifests itself today in certain
factions of the government. The United States Department of Energy Small
Business Innovation Research Grants, for example, specifically exclude
consideration of any process or device related, even in theory, to cold
fusion. This is because it is the official position of the Patent Office
that cold fusion does not exist-merely for the reason that it can't be,
therefore it isn't. Aside from sheltering the tender egos of mainstream
scientists, the Patent Office's rigid stance on NHE also conveniently eliminates
the need to deal with the "annoyance" caused by persistent excess
energy reports.
When Dr. Randall Mills reported that his company,
HPC, and Thermacore, Inc. had proof of NHE to the Subcommittee on Energy
of the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee, the subcommittee
clearly expressed interest, yet the DOE and the Patent Office still stubbornly
refuse to consider Mills' findings. This peculiar dichotomy of opinion
is strongly reminiscent of NASA Headquarters' refusal to consider the Cydonia
landforms even though NASA's own subsidiaries practically shut down operations
to hear the Mars Mission present its data on the Face and related structures.
Recall also how NASA responded to inquiries about the Face on Mars-usually
by sending pictures of formations vaguely resembling Kermit the Frog or
a "happy face"-along with unfounded references to tricks of light
and shadow. Similarly, the U.S. Patent Office often sends cold fusion patent
filers old newspaper clippings or journal stories written by cold fusion
skeptics as justification for not considering cold fusion patents.
What is responsible for the difference in the
"official" opinion versus the interest at lower levels of government?
Either top officials at the DOE already know about cold fusion and are
seeking to discourage public interest, or our leaders are timid bureaucrats,
deathly afraid of change. And what of the mainstream scientific community?
Are the theoretical and practical implications of a limitless, pollution-less
energy so offensive to scientific sensibilities in our nation that normally
level-headed researchers become irrational and emotional when confronted
with positive NHE results?
Apparently so.
Thankfully, there are some exceptions. Edmond
K. Storms, a 34-year veteran of hot fusion at Los Alamos Laboratory, is
one of the few scientists who publicly support cold fusion experiments.
His recent studies of the NHE phenomenon have resulted in several publications,
one of them, published in the official journal of the American Nuclear
Society Fusion Technology, detailing an experiment that produced 20% excess
energy. Dr. Eugene Mallove, also no stranger to the mainstream physics
world, has become convinced that cold fusion is no fluke. "Though
its detailed mechanism remains unexplained, there is simply no longer any
doubt that cold fusion works," he wrote in the first periodical devoted
to the phenomenon, Cold Fusion. "To deny the scientific evidence
for cold fusion-as many have attempted-is to stand science on its head:
to suggest that past 'accepted theory' can legitimately falsify thousands
of experiments that appear to contradict that theory."(4)
(continued in Chapter 2 of The Monkey and
the Tetrahedron...)
====== References=======
(1) The Gordon Institute
News, March/April 1991.
(2) Steven Koonin, lecture
delivered at Baltimore, Maryland A.P.S. Meeting, May 1989, quoted in "Cold
Fusion" 1, no. 1 (1994): 55.
(3) Science, 6 July
1990.
(4) Eugene F. Mallove, "Why
'Cold Fusion'?" "Cold Fusion" 1, no. 1 (1994): 5.
