User talk:Kirk shanahan/Archives/2008/October

Cold fusion question

I wanted to run past you what I think is the situation. You and Edmund Storms have been engaged in a to-and-fro controversy. And Storms has had the most recent word in the controversy, but that does not mean that he will have the last word. Have I understood correctly? If I have, can I suggest you look up the verifiability policy. Wikipedia is looking for verifiability, not truth. That may be why findings you can see are shot through with holes are still usable in the encyclopedia. Quoting Ignore All Rules didn't help you, but there may still be more to say about how fringe and mainstream science are represented in this and other articles. Has Storms' book been reviewed by many scientists yet? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what is the situation... I was asked to add a counterpoint view to the CF article. I tried to do that, but I am being shot down by two guys. The first is Pcarbon, who is a CF 'insider'. He is mentioned favorably several times in the Vortex mailing list, and has published a satirical letter in New Energy Times, a proCF magazine put out by Steve Krivit, who has also contributed to the CF article. The second is Kevin Baas. I know nothing about him except what has been posted here. He has some problem with OR and RS rules, but he never gets specific, except to say that Pcarbon has done so, but I disagree with Pcarbon's assesssment, so Kevin's continued support needs to be explained.

Ed Storms colleted data and published it with a CF interpretation in the Procedings of ICCF8 in 2000. I submitted an article reanalyzing that data in a nonCF fashion in 2000 to a journal, but was shot down in peer review by two CFers who pulled the same kind of tricks we see with Pcarbon (one being specifically Storms). The editor was new, and just went with the straight vote, so I sent the paper to another journal and got it published immediately (which was in 2002), because the Editor was one of the 3 reviewers at the other journal (the one who was favorable to publication), and had seen all the silliness and didn't want that going on in his journal. 4 years later, Storms published a comment paper on my reanalysis, and I replied in standard back-to-back publication fashion (that was 2006). (In 2005 I had a separate publication, responding to a derogatory comment in a different paper that was not Storms-authored, but was Fleishmann-authored.) I have recently obtained the 2007 Storms book and read it and noted that he does not consider my final 2006 publication at all, even though he was commenting on it during review. This has also been noted in one review by Prof. Dieter Britz, published in issue 27 of New Energy Times. As far as I know, that is the only unbiased book review of Storms' book, but I may simply be ignorant. I know several CFers have positively commented on it. To be fair, it lists a wealth of references, but omits my final publication and those of Clarke that bring the calorimetry and He measurements into direct question, and is highly biased towards the 'reality' of cold fusion. However, by not mentioining my last publication (as well as Clarke's), the book is clearly heavily-baised in a very negative way, i.e. no one in their right mind would blindly accept the conclusions inside. But it certainly is verifiable... (BTW - while it is a very questionable book, I am not lobbying for its removal, just the ability to point out major flaws to the Wiki reader.)

As far as having the last word, that isn't a scientific concept. There is never a last word. There is reaching a level of understanding that the debate ceases and the applications begin. However, to reach that level requires conforming to the scientific method and getting the replicatable results that allows one to move on. That hasn't happened in CF yet.

With regards to 'verifiability, not truth', I think you actually mean 'verifiability, not Truth'. We are not going to get to the Truth in the pages of Wikipedia. But do you want lies instead? I would hope not. So you would actually be after some level of truth. The CF article, before my advent, did not have a serious listing of the criticisms of the field, i.e. the reasons the majority of scientists think that CF is bad science. I tried to add that. The discussion in Talk: Cold Fusion has centered on 3 paragraphs so far (imagine the mess if we got tho the rest of the 30 paragrahs or so I wrote.) The edits were block deletion of my added material with specific justification based on OR and RS policies. The truth of the criticisms of the field that I present are being suppressed by what I think are marginal and biased applications of those Wiki policies. For example, strictly as an example of the level of effort required (and stated thusly), I cited a self-published paper by an author who has been an active researcher in the CF field for many years. That was disallowed by Pcarbon, but I see no problem with illustrating for the interesteed Wiki reader what it takes to address the contamination issue. It demonstrates clearly the difference between a serious search and report vs token work, which is the only point I was trying to make. The bottom line of all this is that no valid criticisms are being allowed into the article. That seems to me to violate NPOV. I could write more on this but I won't at this time.

I cited IAR, partly as a joke, but partly because of the biased way that the OR and RS and verifiability policies were being used. This case presents an interesting dilemma to the Wiki owners. Your policies specifically mention that they were formulated to prevent crank physics from being added into articles (presumably mainline articles). But in this case, the article is being written by the 'cranks' or fringe scientists, while the mainline researcher (me) is being barred from editing successfully. I think Wiki may need to reconsider its polcies in this case. I would suggest a rule for controversial topics where the proponents of one side cannot edit the other side's comments. That might not need to apply to a basic historical fact section where things are easily verifiable. The sections written by proponents could be editied by neutral parties for policy violations and the like, and there would be no restrictions on talk page discussions, etc. I mean if I were as outlandish as Pcarbon, I could have deleted lots of the other sections of the article, and just kept going until my opponent gave up or I was banned.

The bottom line is bias. Will Wiki accept a highly biased article in order to conform to the letter of its rules, or will Wiki go for the spirit, which is to prevent abuse and argument, yet provide valuable insight on a variety of topics to its users? Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, are you considering publishing a review of the 2007 Storms book? I would think you'd have a lot of journals more than willing to publish a paper on it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not a book review. That has already been done by Dieter Britz, issue 27 of New Energy Times has 'published' it. I'm thinking about a review article on the status of 'cold fusion', given that its proponents refuse to fairly and accurately deal with the outstanding criticisms, but that is a lot work that I'm not sure I have the time for. I've already wasted a lot on the Wiki article. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, "I replied in standard back-to-back publication fashion (that was 2006)"...do you have a journal name and date for that? That would help a lot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite its reported bias, our article does have this information: Shanahan, Kirk (2006), "Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006", Thermochimica Acta 441(2): 210-214 .

Which was added by me, but is now not adequately described. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your work was already cited in the version before your edits, and further presented in details in the Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments subarticle. In my view, this is the proper way to do it in view of the limited notability of your work. With your proposal, the article devoted more space to your work than to the 2004 DOE report, which is much more notable and representative of mainstream science. See WP:DUE guideline. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record: My 1st post was July 10 to the Talk page, and I point out there that only one reference to my work is cited, with my name mispelled. On July 22, 2008, I added 2 more refs to my work and corrected my name. While the text discussing these refs has changed considerably since then, I added the refs. I haven't checked the history of the Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments subarticle, but my recollection is that I added the discussion of my work there too. Someone else can verify that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I have thanked you for your undisputed contributions to the article. So, we agree that your work was properly cited before your disputed edits on Sept 17, and that it still is. So, I repeat: despite its reported bias, our article does have this information. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed reply. there's stuff I need to mull over. Just for now, to let you know, I only have a basic scientific literacy (O Level physics and biology) but I am a social scientist reasonably well acquainted with epistemology and philosophy of science; I also use applied stats in my work. On WP I respond to the reliable sources noticeboard and I argued vigorously for Storms' book to be considered as a reliable source simply because it is from a mainstream academic publisher. I tend to take quite a simplistic line on sourcing because I'm keen on consistency across the encyclopedia, but there are other more openly "pro-science" editors who might argue differently. A note at the fringe theories noticeboard might be useful at this stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am all for including whatever reliable references would be helpful to the article. However, you have to understand that by 'reliable' I mean 'containing useful information on the subject'. That would include many things Pcarbon doesn't want to include. For example, all the ICCF conference proceedings are 'reliable' in my definition, but that is not to say they are unbiased and empty of errors. Storms' book is a clear example of that. He fails to quote the outstanding criticisms offered by myself and Clarke, while picking and choosing to give an appearance that he has. In science, there is no totally reliable source. One always has to keep both eyes open. For Wiki, the readers should get an accurate picture of the claims and counter-claims, including those obvious to people in the field. Kirk shanahan (talk)

BTW judith, I wanted to make sure you understand that the Storms book issue really hasn't been discussed yet. The enormous discussion that occured on the Talk page was focused on the nuclear transmutation subsection of what I wrote. There are actually 3 major and a couple of minor subsections (threads) in the Criticisms section, all of which were gutted. We just started with the transmutation one. The issue with the thread on calorimetry is unclear to me. It was sourced adequately, and just tried to lay out the criticism and the 'state of the literature' (which is that Storms' had the most recent word, but that he ignored my most recent word when he did, which completely changes the conclusions one would reach). Perhaps it could have been written more clearly, perhaps with less detail, but again, that's no reason to gut the section. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Shanahan said : "But do you want lies instead? I would hope not." Indeed we don't want lies. If there is any lie in the article, please tell us precisely where, so that we can fix it. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For those following this, it is difficult to point 'precisely' to lies by omission, but in science omitting crucial facts is not kosher. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. WP has its own definition of WP:RS reliable sources. It has to cut across all subject areas, but there are also subject-specific guidelines. It may well be that this article throws up some special issues that should be addressed on the talk page of that policy. If you think so, you could raise them, or I could do so for you. Your point about "omitting crucial facts" is an interesting one. WP tends to see article development as an incremental one. For example I start an article on a writer. Someone else adds the date of birth and death. Someone else adds a list of books, and so on. That may not work so well with articles on controversial topics. Having said that, under WP:WEIGHT articles have to give due weight to notable points of view on a topic. You might want to read and reflect on these policies and their implications for the encyclopedia. If you don't have time to do so, you may want to have editors as advocates for your arguments, and I think a message on the fringe theories noticeboard would help. Or alert the Physics Wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that Storms book would not be reliable ? Here is what Dr. Britz said in his book review published in Journal of Scientific Exploration (cited by New Energy Times): "[Dr. Britz] remains agnostic with respect to cold fusion because even a thorough worker like Storms has not succeeded in demonstrating the effect at will. [...] The term "enthusiast" applies to Storms. [...] So, the book is not neutral on the subject. Nevertheless, these weaknesses are comparatively minor and do not detract from the major message of the book, the rather solid experimental evidence of some exotic process taking place, from a careful and self-critical researcher. [...] The Storms book certainly is recommended reading, for both skeptics and proponents. " Pcarbonn (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that at this point. I have argued consistently that it is reliable on the basis that it emanates from a mainstream academic publisher. Everyone must remember though that I say that as someone interested in consistency of sourcing policy across the encyclopedia. If someone wants to argue that Storms book is an exception then I will consider the argument carefully. The Journal of Scientific Exploration on the other hand is not reliable (in WP terms), and I don't think New Energy Times is either, so there is no point in citing this review in support of the book.

May I add Journal of New Energy to the list. It was a ‘journal’ published by Hal Fox, a well-known CF enthusiast over about a 5 year period. It claims to be peer-reviewed, but if you examine the TOCs, there are no mainstream articles at all. It’s all fringe science (possibly even the p-word type). With no mainstreamers participating, it is a group ‘self-published’ journal. JNE is cited in the article, so I’m asking if there is a procedure to disqaulify it. (see http://www.padrak.com/ine/PRODUCTS.html to examine the TOCs.) Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a case where some recent findings are not reflected in the most recent source that we use. This is something that WP warns may happen. We avoid being influenced by recentism. Perhaps that was because of the publisher's deadline for the book, or perhaps it was lack of rigour on Storms' part. As editors we have no way of knowing, although I guess that Kirk has his own view on the point. I think in this case it would be appropriate simply to say that Storms did not mention Shanahan's 2006 paper. Or we could explain Shanahan 2006 after we discuss Storms 2007. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Storms and I were discussing the issues beginning in early 2000. After a couple of years, we mutually gave up as each saw the other as intractable. You can check sci.physics.fusion for some postings of Storms’ comments that I made with his permission during that timeframe. Then in 2005, up comes the Storms’ comment paper. Unfortunately, it contained EXACTLY the same points we had argued to a standstill over in the 2002 timeframe. So, I wrote up all my comments from then and published them as a rebuttal to the comment. In 2006, when Storms had to be writing/editing/proofing his book, he was fully aware of all the publications and issues. He simply chose to disregard the ‘tough’ ones in his writing. It is inconceivable that he didn’t know. He also was certainly appraised of what I was writing during the review process, as that it standard journal policy, but I can not swear that is true, as that would have been through the journal editor’s actions, not mine.

Also remember he ‘neglected’ to mention the adverse Clarke publication I reference. That was published in 2003 as part of a series of studies Clarke did with SRI (McKubre). Storms was certainly aware of that, as he does cite one of the 4 publications arising from that collaboration. Note that this IS ‘lack of rigour’ on Storms’ part, but most importantly, it severely bias the conclusions not to have considered these articles.

Note again that I am more lenient in my sourcing than Wiki seems to be. For example, I have no real problem with using Proceedings, yet Pcarbon is adamantly against it. Likewise for the book. It has some serious flaws, but is useful. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why you say that 'Journal of Scientific Exploration" is not reliable for a book review per WP terms. Could you elaborate ? Pcarbonn (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing about oneself on wikipedia

Dr. Shanahan, you may want to check the guideline on autobiography. While not strictly applicable to the case here, it encourages caution when writing about oneself. For example, it says : "It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself. You should generally let others do the writing." Pcarbonn (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still at a loss as to what you are talking about. Could you please explain your implicitly derrogatory comment? Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that you should be particularly careful when you contribute to articles that talk about your own work, according to Wikipedia guidelines. This includes respecting the opinion of other editors, and assuming their good faith when they comment on the notability of your work. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I'm always careful, didn't denigrate anyone's opinions or actions (just complained about them when I thought they were unfair and biased), and that it "not strictly applicable to the case here". Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree with what you just said. However, I take your statement as a sign of good will for the future. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Shanahan, thank you for your last contributions. They improve the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear P, your contributions to the cold fusion article have been invaluable to pushing back the frontiers of science, they will stimulate generations of scientists-to-be to develop the field of cold fusion engineering, becoming the next genrations of cold fusioners. Your stellar exammple will demostrate to all the children and adluts alike the True Path of science, and we all will benefit from it. (Have you caught my drift yet...)

Someone had to write the article I guess. Pcarbon is to be recogniozed for that. Unfortunately, it was completely biased to the supposed reality of cold fusion. He only included answerd criticisms, leading the reader to suppose no others existed. When I tried to correct that, he suppressed it by distorting every Wiki policy he could, and by utilizing the anarchical feature of Wiki that allows anyone to delete anything. So, all in all, my position on Pcarbon is neutral-to-negative with regards to his contributions to the article. He wrote some useful parts, but he suppressed others. Bye. Kirk shanahan (talk)