I would like to point out, however, that scientists are not immune to human frailties... Every scientist views new publications and new theories from their own beliefs of how the universe works.
Once a scientist (or a group of them) have vested interests in the current paradigm, they tend to ignore data that would overturn their way of thinking. This is part of human nature. Additionally, government funding *is* a zero-sum game, and if your career is at stake then paradigm shifts are a no-no...
If you try to publish a ground-breaking theory that overturns other people's work, guess who's going to be on your review committee? You guessed it, the people who have a vested interest in suppressing your results!
Eventually, good theories get replaced by better theories. An earth-centered cosmology was good enough until the telescope came along. Then the theory of epicycles was good enough until Kepler/Newton and blew it all away. Then Einstein came along and explained things that Newton couldn't (mercury's orbit). Each of these advances managed to explain things at the extreme margins of existing theory.
BTW, Ponds & Fleishmann's cold fusion experiments aren't quite as dead as this guy would like us to think. There have been experiments at other reputable institutions that have found anomalous radiation and other odd things. Nothing as spectacular as the original P&F work, but enough strangeness to keep people poking at it on the down-low...
Park's recommendations are good ones for Judges, though. Legal precedence should be developed from the most conservative (risk-free) scientific interpretations available. We just have to be careful to not confuse the latest theories with Truth (of the capitol-T variety). That would be confusing the map with the actual terrain.
no subject
Once a scientist (or a group of them) have vested interests in the current paradigm, they tend to ignore data that would overturn their way of thinking. This is part of human nature. Additionally, government funding *is* a zero-sum game, and if your career is at stake then paradigm shifts are a no-no...
If you try to publish a ground-breaking theory that overturns other people's work, guess who's going to be on your review committee? You guessed it, the people who have a vested interest in suppressing your results!
Eventually, good theories get replaced by better theories. An earth-centered cosmology was good enough until the telescope came along. Then the theory of epicycles was good enough until Kepler/Newton and blew it all away. Then Einstein came along and explained things that Newton couldn't (mercury's orbit). Each of these advances managed to explain things at the extreme margins of existing theory.
BTW, Ponds & Fleishmann's cold fusion experiments aren't quite as dead as this guy would like us to think. There have been experiments at other reputable institutions that have found anomalous radiation and other odd things. Nothing as spectacular as the original P&F work, but enough strangeness to keep people poking at it on the down-low...
Park's recommendations are good ones for Judges, though. Legal precedence should be developed from the most conservative (risk-free) scientific interpretations available. We just have to be careful to not confuse the latest theories with Truth (of the capitol-T variety). That would be confusing the map with the actual terrain.