[lisper]

> Let me revisit my statement once I've read those chapters then.

You can find them here:

https://flownet.com/ron/TIKN/

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.

[vixen99]

No, we don't yet know what's happening in that area: as the DARPA 2022 report puts it in a press release entitled 'Solid State verification of nuclear particles in electrochemical cells'. "Work should continue - much interesting science to be done. Results do not yet rise to level publishable in peer-reviewed physics journals". Bottom line: some neutrons appear and they cannot explain the mechanism. If neutrons are detected and it's definitely 'cold' then what would you call it?

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

[lisper]

I would call it "anomalous room-temperature neutron production".

[maxnoe]

This is easily solved by adding the well known quote (Sagan):

"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."

[lisper]

Well, Fleischmann and Pons claimed to have extraordinary evidence. They were just wrong.

Also, I cover the Sagan quote in the previous installment:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/the-scientific-method-pa...

[maxnoe]

You don't get to claim yourself that the evidence you obtained is extraordinary

[mistermann]

Go through Lisper's history, he is quite literally never incorrect, even when he has no evidence or outright dodges all questions.

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.

[mikhailfranco]

Yes, extraordinary is just a function of replication (number, diversity, quality, reputation) and sigmas. It has to satisfy a significant majority of scientists (peers), with diverse relevant qualifications (theoretical, experimental, across relevant disciplines), for a significant time.

[lisper]

They didn't, and that's obviously not what I meant.

[mikhailfranco]

No, the 2nd Law is just a statistical property relating macrostates to microstates. It can never be the foundation of physics for the underlying system.

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.