From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:44:44 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Greg Kuperberg comments, "Here I am with a savings account earning a modest
interest and you're putting your money where your mouth is on cold fusion. 
You're a braver man than I."

Goodness, it wasn't all that much money! It came to around $12,000 when all
was said and done, and we still have enough materials for several more runs.
Also, we got a lot of generous help, and some donated equipment from our
friends. The main expense was for a new Apple computer, which did not work
well, and for an old IBM XT, which did. The Apple is now being used for
conventional computing elsewhere. Also, we purchased used equipment: a cooler,
several sets of power supplies, and we have gone though two new expensive
flowmeters, which I highly recommend.

Greg also comments:  "Gates may have made 5 or 10 billion, but he hasn't made
it scot-free. He's created some hard feelings by guarding his software
rights... But then there are those few rich men who don't have to worry...
jealousy or suspicion, who are actually *admired* by their peers and
countrymen. These are people like Edison and Bell..."

Every successful businessman creates hard feelings. It is inevitable. For one
thing, you can only succeed by driving other people out of business and
ruining their lives. Also, only very tough, ruthless people can survive. Some
of them are personally very nice, and most are completely honest, honorable,
and good citizens. But, they have to be hard-hearted in their business
affairs, and they have to enjoy destroying other people. It is similar to
warfare: a good soldier enjoys killing people. I have known many good
soldiers, some of them are fine, loving, decent and good people, except when
you put them in a Mitsubishi Zero Fighter and tell them to kill as many of
their fellow men as possible. The human heart is complex and unknowable.

I am in the software business, and I admire Bill Gates a great deal. You are
wrong about Edison and Bell, lots of people were extremely jealous of them,
and they were both very tough customers, who drove hard bargains.

Greg comments: "Cold fusion is a long shot." Not in my opinion, but in the
eyes of the world, yes, it is. If it was not considered a long shot, it would
not be a high-return investment. The rate of return for a sure-fire
investment, like a CD, has to be lower than the rate of return for a risky
investment. The perception of risk, plus dumb luck, are the two factors that
make a fabulously good return on investment. The trick is to find something
that looks dangerous to other people, but actually is not dangerous, because
that keeps competition to a minimum.



Terry Bollinger comments: "[Regarding] TmDxHy [nickel CF] heat anomalies...
Thanks primarily to Jed Rothwell's recent prolific writings, I'm no longer
sure I believe in their existence.  (Go figger, Jed.)

Your response is easy to "figger" out. I have seen it many times in the
software business and elsewhere. For example, in the early '80's, it became
increasingly obvious that microcomputers would displace mini and mainframe
computers. I had many customers and friends in major corporations, and in
places like NCR, Data General and IBM, who made a living programming or
selling large computers. As the evidence became stronger and more inescapable,
and as microcomputer sales skyrocketed, they protested more and more
vigorously that microcomputers were useless toys which could not do the real
jobs of data processing, and that there was no future in them. The stronger
the evidence, the stronger their denial became.

These people did every thing they could to avoid purchasing, or working with,
or even looking at microcomputers. Many so-called "skeptics" in CF act the
same way; I tell them how to perform a simple nickel experiment that will
probably show them the phenomenon. Instead of spending a few days on the
experiment, they give me a thousand reasons why they cannot or will not do it.
They struggle to avoid facing reality. Your reaction reminds me of what
Huizenga said when Business World asked him about the recent reports of high
heat. He said the results are so preposterous, "you can dismiss them out of
hand." What you and Huizenga are saying is that the higher the sigma level of
confidence, the *less* likely the results are real.

Your reaction is a common and understandable fault of human nature; everyone,
including me, falls into the same trap from time to time. I have seen this
kind of irrational denial in people who were seriously or terminally ill, but
who kept insisting that the doctors were wrong and they would get better.
While this is understandable, you should realize that your emotions are
talking, not your intellect, and that this kind of irrational, dysfunctional
behavior can lead to serious personal problems if it gets out of hand, as it
has with poor Dr. Huizenga. You need to take a deep breath, go back to basics,
and try to sort out in your mind some fundamental rules of science.

Your biggest problem is that you have forgotten the difference between theory
and evidence. For example, you say: "The 'cold fusion' line is a total crock,
and I think the majority of the high-heat folks know it by now.  (Evidence?
Interest in Mills' "hydrino" idea, which is a modified (a) theory...)"

You do not understand the use of the word "evidence." Data is evidence. A
theory, like the Mills' idea, is not evidence, and plays no role in judging
whether or not the phenomenon exists. Mills might have the wrong theory, but
his data has been replicated by dozens of people at levels far beyond possible
experimental errors. A theory can never, ever, prove or disprove anything in
science, only experimental data can do that.

You go on to say, "you are asking for a MAJOR humdinger of a violation of
physics." This is totally irrelevant. Ten Million Major Humdingers would not
make one iota of difference. The only scientifically valid questions are:

1. What do the instruments show?

2. What is the signal to noise ratio?

The instruments show Delta T temperature differences as high as 50 C, at sigma
levels greater than 90, therefore CF exists. Nothing else matters, and no
theory can have any effect on the conclusion that the heat is real, and far
beyond the limits of chemistry. Theory plays no role in this conclusion
whatsoever, and cannot be used to attack or defend it. Please stop confusing
the roles of theory and evidence. These roles were firmly established by
Kepler, Galileo, and other early scientists, and they have not changed one
bit. Science is built upon observation, evidence and data. In all cases, when
data of sufficiently high sigma conflicts with theory, theory is wrong.

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion