Let me revisit my statement once I've read those chapters then.
Regarding your second statement, out of curiosity, I wonder how you would characterize the 1989 series of experiments done by Fleischmann and Pons.
Regarding your second statement, out of curiosity, I wonder how you would characterize the 1989 series of experiments done by Fleischmann and Pons.
You can find them here:
Note that they are quite drafty. That was the result of a previous effort to tackle this project of writing about the scientific method for a general audience that I ultimately abandoned in favor of this current approach. The history part starts in chapter 5.
These were based on a series of lectures I gave a few years ago. I can dig up those links too if you're interested.
> I wonder how you would characterize the 1989 series of experiments done by Fleischmann and Pons.
I'm not sure what you expect me to say. The results have not been reproduced, so whatever happened in 1989 it was almost certainly not cold fusion.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
An older quote, addressing this case more directly would be (Eddington):
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — *well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.* But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Also, I cover the Sagan quote in the previous installment:
https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/the-scientific-method-pa...
His performance in a philosophy thread a while back was extraordinary, explaining the truth and true value of various philosophy and philosophers, despite not having read it.
This is the power of The Science, nothing is more powerful, and nothing can be more powerful.
Life does a pretty good job of evading it, locally, for lifetimes. Civilizations overcome it for longer, perhaps indefinitely, as long as there are stars/blackholes in the sky, or uranium/hydrogen nuclear fuel to be scavenged.
Wolfram recently tried to explain the 2nd Law, as a consequence of time-coherent computationally-bounded observers. As always with him, it is fascinating and infuriatingly in equal measure:
https://www.wolfram-media.com/products/the-second-law-resolv...
Those subsystems that evade it (life) also need explanation. Friston, Levin, Lane, England and others are starting to give plausible models and explanations.
There are many other reports more or less with the same proviso. 'Not yet publishable'. Many will wonder about the 'yet' but that's usually the case with potentially new areas of science.
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153487 Li–Pd–Rh-D2O electrochemistry experiments at elevated voltage