“If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.”
These quotes were recalled by J Robert Oppenheimer, the Father of the Atomic Bomb, at the Trinity test of the first atomic bomb on July 16, 1945. It used 6.2 kg of plutonium but exploded with the equivalent force of 20,000 tons of TNT. The bomb worked by nuclear fission. When a large atom captures a neutron, it can become unstable and break apart into 2 or more smaller fragments, releasing additional neutrons which keep the chain reaction going. The products of the reaction weigh slightly less than the original atom and neutron. This “missing mass” is converted to energy. Amazingly, for the Trinity bomb, less than 1 gm of mass was converted to energy, or about equivalent to 1/3 of a US penny, yet accounted for nearly all of its explosive effect. So, where did the energy come from? It was described by Einstein several decades before in his famous equation: e=mc2, where the energy equals the mass times the speed of light squared.
There is another type of nuclear reaction called fusion, where two atoms are smashed together to make a single, heavier type of atom. Because the resulting atom is slightly lighter than the starting atoms, the “missing mass” is also converted to energy. This is what powers the stars, including our sun. Fusion is an ideal energy source as the necessary isotopes of hydrogen are all around us in sea water. Fusion is also much “cleaner” than fission with a byproduct of plain non-radioactive helium. So why don’t we use fusion?
Fusion is difficult under “normal” conditions. Nuclei have the same positive charge and so are repulsed from each other. If you can get them close enough, however, an attractive nuclear force takes over and combines the nuclei, releasing energy. In the sun and in fusion reactors here on earth, this is done by creating high temperatures and high pressures to push the atoms together. Unfortunately, with our current designs, it takes more energy to get the atoms close together than the reaction creates.
In 1989, at the University of Utah, Fleischmann and Pons announced that they had discovered “cold fusion”. They had a special alloy that they claimed concentrated the hydrogen atoms in such a way that there were able to combine and release fusion energy at room temperature. This was initially heralded as a great breakthrough. If true, it could truly have revolutionized energy production in the world. However, as others tried to replicate their results, it was found to be a mistake. Errors were found in the process, and “cold fusion” is now a term of derision.
So, what does this have to do with the scientific search for truth?
Historically, explanations for things were drawn from religious, supernatural, or mythological areas. People started looking for more naturalistic causes over 2000 years ago. The search for scientific truth passed though many phases in many cultures, including the Greek world, the Islamic world, and the Western world.
The currently accepted model, which has enabled a true scientific revolution, is the hypothetico-deductive model, or scientific method. According to this model, there are 4 main phases, with varying labels:
1) Characterization – This involves defining a problem. It is based on experience, measurements, other information, etc. Sometimes, things come in a flash of inspiration. Other times, it involves a lot of background work.
2) Hypothesis/Theory – This consists of forming a conjecture and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for the problem
3) Prediction – This allows the hypothesis to be tested. What results should be seen if the hypothesis is true?
4) Experiment/Observation – This tests the hypothesis. If observed experimental data agree with the predictions, experiments can be continued to further support the hypothesis. If experimental data does NOT agree withe the predictions, go back to step 2 and make a new hypothesis.
Several comments on this:
– Hypotheses can NOT be proven true, they can only be proven false.
Every time an experiment is done, it should agree with a prediction. If more and more experiments confirm this over time, it becomes a “better” hypothesis. But it only takes one time when it doesn’t work to invalidate the hypothesis. Of course, for a long-standing hypothesis, it makes sense to check that the experiment was done correctly, but a single “bad” outcome can restart the process.
– Theory is a another name for hypothesis (not exactly, but close enough for this post).
One of the strategies used by some religious people to attack scientific concepts with which they disagree is to say that they aren’t really proven but are just “theories”. This is absolutely correct. This is how science works. Everything in science is a theory. Some things have stood the test of time, have been confirmed through hundreds or thousands of experiments, and have predicted future results exactly. But, there is always the possibility that they may change.
– Good science is open and reproducible
Scientists keep meticulous records. When they publish their results, they publish how they got the results. Anyone else should be able to duplicate their results exactly if they replicate the experiment exactly.
– Theories become refined and may change over time
Newton defined 3 laws of motion, explaining masses, forces and movement. For over 200 years after he defined them, they predicted the results of all experiments that scientists performed. However,they were eventually found to have flaws. Newton’s “laws” don’t work at very small sizes, at very high speeds (approaching the speed of light), or in areas of very high gravitation (such as near massive stars and black hole sized objects). These laws are still used for normal, everyday calculations, but refined equations better describe the full range of conditions.
Science has been spectacularly successful. The computer with which you are reading this is the culmination of thousands of breakthroughs and experiments. Medicine has increased the quality and longevity of millions of people’s lives. We feed more people and have contracted the world through travel. And all because of a few simple steps, repeated over and over.
So back to nuclear energy and Einstein. In 1905, based on his experiences and thought experiments, Einstein made the hypothesis that massive amounts of energy could be released from a small amount of mass. Based on this, predictions were made. Due to German aggression, Einstein suggested to FDR that the United States work on an atomic bomb. Experiments confirmed predictions and the nuclear age began. The method was successful enough that new bombs can be designed and tested entirely in computer simulations. So far, Einstein’s hypothesis hasn’t been disproved.
Even though it’s powerful, however, science is NOT perfect. Fleischmann and Pons show that mistakes can happen. Data can be misinterpreted. People may head down detours and dead-ends. Ultimately, however, theories are only as good as their predictive power. The scientific method is designed to self-correct, and in the case of “cold fusion” and many other things, it did.
While we don’t need to know everything in science, it is important to understand the scientific method and what theory means. I was in a YM class a few years ago and a leader gave an often quoted story about Einstein. Einstein was approached by a teaching assistant about a test he was giving, that it was the same test as the previous year. Einstein thought for a moment, smiled, then replied that it was ok, that the answers had changed. In our class, the leader used this example to suggest that science was “faulty” or “untrustworthy” because it changed. He taught that we could only trust God and the Church, as they were the only “unchanging” things in the world. I understand the point he was trying to make, but the logic was completely wrong and the disparaging attitude towards science was harmful.
Science does change. We are continually learning more. We are told that in the last days that knowledge will flood the earth. Some studies suggest that human knowledge is doubling every 10-15 years. Much good has come from this.
In the next post, we are going to discuss the Search for Religious Truth, followed by a couple of posts on strategies for reconciling the two. Then the fun begins, as we’ll cover a wide range of topics touching on science and religion once the groundwork is set.
Questions:
- What do you think when things like “evolution” are presented as “just theories”? What does “theory” imply to you?
- While the “14 points” suggest that the Prophet can speak on any subject at any time (which theoretically makes sense given his role as a direct conduit to God), do you expect scientific knowledge to come through a Church channel or through a scientist?
- On my mission, it took months for the General Conference message to filter to Europe. It can now be streamed live across the Internet. When my mission was over, I was back home across the Atlantic, a few hours after I left. Are these examples of knowledge flooding the earth that we are promised in the last days?
- Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are often presented as “experiments” on faith. Do they truly follow the scientific method? It not, how do they differ? If someone does NOT receive any answer as per Moroni 10:4, is this a flaw in the hypothesis (ie. the promise), or is it a flaw in the experiment (ie. the person)? Or is this an example of the “opposite” of the scientific method, where only a confirmatory answer is acceptable and a negative answer is thrown out?
- Is these any basis for a foundation in science, or as was taught in the YM lesson, is science too “wishy-washy” to base anything on?
- I think it is absolutely mind-boggling that less than 1gm of mass can be the equivalent of 20,000 TONS of TNT. Isn’t that cool?
(NOTE: This is #3 in a multi-part series which starts here. )
Wheat & Tares 
Great post. I await with anticipation the discussions/disagreements/consensuses that arise from this series.
Mike,
Great Post.
Science does change, but truth does not. Science can and does lead to truth. Our children can and should be encouraged to understand as much science as possible. You are right; the church leader did provide (probably unknowingly) a great disservice for science.
The science behind hydrogen fusion is extremely impressive. It is amazing, but limited. Hydrogen bombs have a fission trigger. Critical mass is reached; the energy is dispersed and then fades. Although impressive, it is the result of man’s limited (albeit impressive) knowledge. But what about the Sun? Too me this is more amazing. Not so much because it is hydrogen fusion (also Helium fusion) in action, but because it is perpetual. What triggers the fusion? What keeps it going? Although we have an impressive knowledge of fusion and can replicate it here on earth, our knowledge is still limited and points to an omniscient being.
(1) What triggers the fusion?
Gravity.
(2) What keeps it going?
Gravity and heat.
Put enough mass in one place, and you get a star. No need for God to be involved.
Mike S – another great post!
•What do you think when things like “evolution” are presented as “just theories”? What does “theory” imply to you? It depends. I view theories positively, but what I think is funny is when its implied that religious ideas are facts in contrast with “scientific theories.”
•While the “14 points” suggest that the Prophet can speak on any subject at any time (which theoretically makes sense given his role as a direct conduit to God), do you expect scientific knowledge to come through a Church channel or through a scientist? I don’t consider the 14 points valid, and I certainly think history will bear it out. A prophet speaking on scientific matters with no schooling or background can get in over his head quickly.
•On my mission, it took months for the General Conference message to filter to Europe. It can now be streamed live across the Internet. When my mission was over, I was back home across the Atlantic, a few hours after I left. Are these examples of knowledge flooding the earth that we are promised in the last days? I often think the internet is a fulfillment of some of those visions of old. It’s nothing short of miraculous. But even widespread literacy could qualify as knowledge flooding the earth compared to a few hundred years ago.
•Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are often presented as “experiments” on faith. Do they truly follow the scientific method? It not, how do they differ? If someone does NOT receive any answer as per Moroni 10:4, is this a flaw in the hypothesis (ie. the promise), or is it a flaw in the experiment (ie. the person)? Or is this an example of the “opposite” of the scientific method, where only a confirmatory answer is acceptable and a negative answer is thrown out? We often hear at GC that a negative answer is incorrect. Church members who’ve received a positive answer would probably say it’s a faulty experiment to get a no. I think either way, it’s probably not scientific, but spiritual matters don’t have to be. The problem is when people want to compare spiritualism with science. They are not the same thing at all.
•Is these any basis for a foundation in science, or as was taught in the YM lesson, is science too “wishy-washy” to base anything on? No, that’s a truly ignorant notion. You could certainly make that case for religion (that it’s too wishy-washy). The difference is that science is about how things work, natural laws and so forth. Religion is about how to be a good person.
– I think it is absolutely mind-boggling that less than 1gm of mass can be the equivalent of 20,000 TONS of TNT. Isn’t that cool? Religion talks about having the faith to move mountains . . .
“Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are often presented as “experiments” on faith. Do they truly follow the scientific method?”
It’s been argued that for a hypothesis to be properly scientific, it has to be falsifiable — there has to be some scenario which, if it occurred, would prove the hypothesis false. Since the Mormon take on Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4 doesn’t (for practical purposes) admit of any possible falsification, it may not be proper to call the process a true “experiment.”
As for science’s supposed unreliability, because of its ever-changing nature, fair enough, but religion isn’t anywhere near as constant as it pretends to be.
But what about the Sun? To me this is more amazing. Not so much because it is hydrogen fusion in action, but because it is perpetual.
The sun’s energy isn’t perpetual or constant. The sun was cooler in the past and will be hotter in the future until the fuel in its core burns out. The sun is about half-way through its “yellow” phase. In just 1 billion years the sun will be so hot that liquid water won’t be able to exist on earth. About 4 billion years after that the fusion of hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core will stop. The sun will expand in size to become a red giant, so big that it will approximately fill the earth’s current solar orbit. Eventually (in about 6 billion years from now) the sun will start shrinking and turn into a white dwarf, much smaller than the current sun. At that point it will no longer be generating energy by fusion and will start to cool. Eventually it will be cold and dark.
Etc.
Thanks for the encouragement so far in the series. A few comments:
Will: “Science changes, truth does not”. I agree. The is the essence of this whole series as defined in the first post. Our understanding may be imperfect, but I also believe that the truth exists. I also believe that as science progresses, on average, we are getting closer and closer to finding that truth rather than further away.
MoMoHawaii/Goldarn: Thank you for the comments on the sun. There is a whole post on the process (somewhere around #9 or #10) but we do understand the process quite well. Stars have lives – they are born, grow, and die. And without star death, we wouldn’t have the higher elements needed to make us. So, we are absolutely dependent on the fact that the process going on in the Sun is NOT perpetual.
Thomas: We will get into the “unchanging” nature of religion in the next post. As you alluded to, it’s nowhere near as “constant” as people teach.
Whew, those comments were getting long, so I broke it up.
Hawkgrrl: I share your sentiments on prophets getting in over their head when they drift too far into scientific realms. We’ll cover it more in post #5, but our own history is replete with examples of this. I also don’t know why the 14 points were repeated twice in GC when they were ETB was actually asked to apologize for them when they were originally given, but that has been hashed out on other posts.
hawkgrrl/Thomas:
Regarding Moroni’s promise – this is where I have issues with it. On my mission, we essentially taught that this was akin to an “experiment”. The hypothesis necessarily had to be true, so any failure for someone to get the correct observation (ie. an answer that the BofM was true) necessarily had to be a fault with the person. Either they weren’t sincere enough, or they didn’t pray hard enough, or they didn’t pray long enough, or the lack of an answer was somehow part of God’s “plan”, or some other reason.
This has actually been institutionalized. Hinckley (and others) taught that the whole Church stands or falls based on the validity of the BofM. If it is true, then the Church is true. If it is false, then the Church is a fraud.
I think there are lots of breaks in the logic chain from the assertion to the conclusion. However, what does this mean for people who do NOT receive an affirmative answer that the BofM is true?
– The Church is a fraud and all the members are deceived.
– The person just hasn’t prayed enough
– The person has unresolved sins keeping them from getting an answer
– God is just testing them with no answer
– The BofM contains truth, in the same sense that the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qu’ran contain truth, but isn’t “True”
– That perhaps this Church isn’t the path that God thinks is best for a particular person in mortality
– Who knows?
I know that there are many, many sincere people, both within and without the Church, who have tested Moroni’s promise and haven’t received a confirmation. In the scientific world, this would dismiss the hypothesis (ie. if the BofM is what it says it is, then EVERYONE should be able to duplicate the experiment and receive the SAME answer). The religious world is obviously different. So, should we be teaching that ALL sincere people WILL receive and answer, or should we perhaps be teaching something different?
Aside: That is my favorite picture of Einstein. It shows that in spite of being as intelligent as him, you can still have a goofy side. If you haven’t read it, I’d highly recommend his biography, Einstein: His Life and Universe. It’s long (around 700 pages), but a great read.
Another Aside:
The first picture is actually of the Tsar Bomba, as it was cooler looking than the Trinity pictures. It was a Russian hydrogen bomb that exploded with the equivalent of 50 MEGAtons of TNT and was the largest bomb ever set off.
Cool facts:
– This is 1400x the combined power of both atomic bombs exploded over Japan (Little Boy and Fat Man)
– This is 10x the power of ALL the explosives set off in ALL of WWII
– For the short time it exploded, it put out power equivalent to 1.4% of the Sun
– The seismic shock wave it produced was measurable on its 3rd trip around the earth
– It was originally designed to be twice as powerful (100 MT) but at the last minute its power was cut in half through a design change to minimize fall-out.
Re Mike S
Another great installment. First a correction and then a thought:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/laser-fusion-ignition/
I worked on the control system for NIF at LLNL before I went back to school. Just a few weeks ago they conducted a DT ignition experiment that yielded neutrons. With NIF we now have the technology do demonstrate E=mc^2 in the laboratory, to create a mini-sun on earth.
I agree with Hawk and Thomas on the issue. I’m less convinced of an eternal truth, but perhaps that is my lot as an engineer. See, as I’ve written about, at length, I think the only proper mechanism for viewing science, truth, religion, is stochastically. I don’t believe that any theory is truly negated. Though I think the scientific method works, practically, I think we push the “noise” under the rug idealistically. The truth is, every time you get in an airplane you are validating Newton’s laws. At the same time, however, Newton’s laws are disproved with EVERY experiment because the noise in the system can never be truly accounted for.
At some level, this isn’t really that important. We can all easily verify, and believe in Newton’s laws to within EXTREMELY high precision and EXTREMELY low noise. Even so, the noise is still there. To me, based on the past, this implies that although we may claim to find a unifying “truth” or theory (perhaps String Theory is the key), my conjecture will be that it still will never be able to account for all the noise in the system. I don’t think this is a flaw with science or anything, I just think it implies that absolute “truth” at least in the physical world, may always elude us.
I have argued with theoretical physicists over this, and they are certainly convinced that the proper theory will truly account for ALL the noise. I think that’s a fair hope, but it certainly isn’t based on past experimentation. I think most scientists are able to see past this perhaps because they don’t deal with it day in and day out. In real life, noise in the system is what plagues ALL engineers ALL the time. The whole point of engineering is picking the best design to lower that noise. But it is ever-present.
jbm275:
Thanks for the comments – I appreciate the insights from you and others. Now that you mentioned it, I do recall reading that in Wired (a great magazine). That’s cool you were able to work on it. While I am a surgeon now, my degree is actually in electrical engineering, so things like this fascinate me.
I also agree that noise seems to be ever present as we go further and further “down”. But the noise leads to insights. The noise in Newton’s systems essentially lead to relativity, etc. The noise in microwave technology lead to discovery of the cosmic background radiation which lead to a whole other slew of discoveries. The noise in other areas may end up having implications for string theory, etc.
Will we ever get to the “bottom”? Who knows? But the journey is sure cool.
“The religious world is obviously different.”
Why is this obvious. The Book of Mormon itself employs the word “experiment” and states that it should be followed up with observation, and statements of findings. Alma 32 suggests that outcomes will yield a good seed that “sprouteth” and enlargens the soul, or a bad seed which will not sprout. Moroni on the other hand omits observations and inserts subjective paramaters (sincere heart, real intent, faith). Still, I see the scientific method all over this matter. I read The Book of Mormon, I pray, then I make decisions based on the outcome. If the experiment conforms to the prediction, I recieve a revelation for example, then I conclude the seed “good”. If the experiment does not conform to the prediction, than I conclude that either the seed is not good, or something was wrong with my experiment. In the spirit of due dilligence, I repeat the experiment excercising greater control that my efforts are bounded properly within the defined constraints. If my outcome improves, than I admit that the first test was faulty. If it does not, I conclude that a proper test is either beyond my ability, or that the seed is bad. Others can look at my efforts and jump to hasty conclusions about my test in order to support the observations from their own experiments.
Sorry, minor correction:
“Moroni on the other hand omits observations”
should read:
“Moroni on the other hand omits observations that falsify”
Cowboy: I stand corrected. I perhaps should have phrased it – “The LDS religious world is obviously different”
Whether this should or should not be true is obviously a matter of discussion. However, in the LDS Church, for all the talk about “experiment on my word” and Moroni’s promise, the standard line is that there is only one answer.
My personal opinion is more in line with yours, to be honest. I think that the reason some people don’t get answers is that their path through life perhaps lies outside the LDS Church, so they actually ARE getting an answer that the LDS Church isn’t for them. This won’t work in the “official” LDS policy, however. It isn’t what they teach missionaries in the MTC. It isn’t what they talk about in General Conference.
The basis of the LDS Church in our canonized scriptures is that all other churches are an abomination and that this is the one true Church. Because of this, the only logical explanation for someone that does NOT get an affirmative answer is that they aren’t ready or that they didn’t do the experiment right.
Interestingly, 2500 years ago, Buddha talked about this very issue. He taught: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
This obviously wouldn’t work in the hierarchal nature of the LDS Church, where how we practice things as trivial as how many earrings we have or what color shirt we wear on Sunday isn’t left up to the individual, but is mandated from above. It also doesn’t line up with quotes like, “When the leaders speak, the thinking is done”.
Because much of the Western world does think in line with the scientific method and are more skeptical of “claims” (maybe because of the nature of the internet, distrust of authority, etc.), Buddhism has been growing A LOT in the Unites States, without ANY missionaries or proselyting. It is difficult to measure the number of Buddhists, but most studies suggest it grew 170% between 1990-2001 and even more since then. The best estimates suggest around 5-7 million Buddhists in the US, which is on par with Judaism, Islam and the LDS Church here.
So, how do we answer Moroni’s promise with people who sincerely got a “negative” answer, yet still support the premise of the “one true Church” expectation that EVERYONE should get the affirmative answer? I don’t know.
I have really been seeking to understand this. And it wasn’t that long ago that I had an orthodox Mormon worldview.
My answer is that faithful Mormons will acknowledge everything you’re saying here. They will recognize the need for learning (ironically though because leaders have said so) and science, and the worth of other religions. I don’t think most Mormons think all other churches are an abomination. Personally, I thought exactly what I was told to think, that they have parts of the truth, but not the fullness. Likewise, with Moroni’s promise, and really all of our truth claims, I think Mormons, when pushed to their logical wit’s end, will fall back on faith. I think most will eventually surrender that some things just don’t make sense, that some people don’t get answers, that there are contradictions between observations and beliefs. The difference between them, and many of us commenting here, is that we were willing to doubt the significance or interpretation of our spiritual witnesses (if we had them) and by extension, the church/Gospel itself. To them, however, their faith is a sufficient fall back answer.
I don’t think this is a weakness, or intellectual laziness or anything like that. I think it’s a perspective issue. It took me many many months of thinking and investigating to see the perspective from the other side of the fence. Only then, could I see how faith, for me at least, was no longer an acceptable answer. I don’t think most Mormons ever get that far in investigating the other side of the fence. Most don’t read Dawkins, or Hitchens, and most don’t see a contradiction between science and religion (since the church encourages science). When science seemingly contradicts, they compartmentalize it in the back of their minds awaiting further information but fully confirming their beliefs over the contradictory science.
At least, that’s how I viewed it as a traditional orthodox Mormon not that long ago. Your mileage may vary.
You wrote that cold fusion “was found to be a mistake.”
That is incorrect. Cold fusion was replicated at hundreds of major laboratories. Thousands of papers describing these replications have been published, including about 1000 that I copied from the library at Los Alamos. I suggest you review this literature before commenting on this research. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/
#14 Cowboy: “If my outcome improves, than I admit that the first test was faulty. If it does not, I conclude that a proper test is either beyond my ability, or that the seed is bad. Others can look at my efforts and jump to hasty conclusions about my test in order to support the observations from their own experiments.”
So, how many times do you repeat the experiment before you make that conclusion. Once? Twice? A dozen times? A hundred times? Until you get an answer? I would argue that the “official” answer is the last one.
Mike S.
I am pleased that you start the scientific method with characterization — defining a problem. Neither prophets nor scientists go anywhere unless their attention is called to a problem, and how they DEFINE the problem will definitely constrain or redirect their paths to the truth.
I’d suggest also that it might be best to look at the next phase be as “explanation” to incorporate BOTH “theory” and “hypothesis”. In a lot of the hard sciences, we use hypothesis to describe explanations for very limited problems. Theory is used to describe overarching explanations for lots of problems at the same time, and tends to unify lots of hypotheses.
Successful prediction of observations tends to stop the process, because it doesn’t generate new problems. It’s the accumulation of anomalous results that CAN trigger new problems and generate new explanations — and that applies both to prophets and scientists.
On the matter of the BofMormon test, it is an obvious logical flaw to conclude too much from even a favorable test. At best, you can conclude that JS was inspired at the time he produced it. Not that he and/or any of his successors in office — your denomination and mine — didn’t mess up later.
And that, of course, provides an entirely different explanation for negative tests of Moroni today. Maybe God doesn’t want people associating with our bad examples. 😀
Further re: the Alma 32 “experiment,” to be precise, all that it really establishes when a person experiences the “swelling motions” in his breast, and feels his soul and understanding to be “enlarged,” is that — the “seed” in question has the effect of causing one to feel “swelling motions” and enlarging the soul.
This is taken to be evidence that the text that triggered this experience, must be literally true. As the math teachers say — show your work. Why is this the case?
What needs to be demonstrated, is that only an ancient, authentic text, whose provenance is exactly as its offeror stated it, can produce these “religious affections” (to borrow Jonathan Edwards’ description of New England-style mystical religious experience.) Is this true, and why?
Great post, and great series so far. I’ll be excited to read the remaining parts.
#18) Mike S:
The best answer I can give is related to Moroni 10:3-5. As I have stated, and I think as most would agree, the constraints which often become the points of debate, are subjective. I can only know that I excercised “enough” faith, sincerity, etc, if the “test” yields an affirmative outcome. This makes it even the more difficult to discern whether another person has made a sufficient offering in this case. This makes the matter quite difficult, because if the constraint threshold is too high, what compells me to keep performing an experiment that at least appears not to work? Therefore, I can only subjectively decide when enough is enough. For me, I served a faithfull mission – I don’t intende to embellish here, but at least compared to the majority of Elders I interacted with, I was more dilligent than average. I obeyed the rules, I woke earlier than most to study harder than most. I searched the scriptures rigorously, and worked faithfully. When I returned home, I stayed active and faithfull. I served in a number of callings giving more than average service, and continued to serve. I did this for a few years, until I began to study Church history with the same dilligence as I studied the scriptures – it was downhill from there. Long and short, years of faithfull service, and dilligent seeking and prayer never yielded a meaningful result. If the gospel were true, then the threshold is just too high for me. To my view, since I can’t speak for God, my offering should have been enough so subjectively speaking – staying the course appears futile. This compounded now with all of the nuances that we routinely discuss here, give me a sense that the Church is probably not true, therefore positive results should not be expected. To sum up, it’s all subjective probabilities.
#19: Firetag
I agree that the definition of a problem is generally the most important part. If we don’t start thinking about something, we’ll never even get to the point about coming up with an possible explanation. With Einstein, his thought experiments took him further.
And in the religious setting, JS asking God a question led to many, many things. People asking about blacks and the priesthood led to that being changed.
I think this means we (as members of our various denominations) need to keep “kicking against the pricks” a little bit. There is a tremendous amount of inertia in the LDS Church (I don’t know as much about the CofC). It seems the primary goal there is not to upset the status quo. While we (ie. members) obviously have absolutely NO say whatsoever in the LDS Church, bringing things to people’s attention can hopefully at least cause them to ask the questions.
I think this happens. Perhaps BKP would have “clarified” what he meant in his recent talk without all of the clamor. Perhaps not. But it was changed.
#22 Cowboy
I can relate to what you have experienced. It does beg the question: at what point does the lack of an affirmative answer mean the answer is no?
For many members, they would claim that the answer is so obviously yes that you just need to have faith and hang in there, as an answer “no”, that the Church isn’t the “One True Church”, is logically inconceivable.
At the same time, I do wonder at what point an “answer” might come for people who have studied the BofM, prayed about it, served missions, served in callings, been through the temple, etc. but who have never felt that “conversion”. After how many months, years, decades, etc. is it time to perhaps find something that fits better? I don’t know.
Let me clarify. I don’t presume to have recieved an anwer at all, so I have not recieved a revelation that the Church is not true. The supposition behind Mormon testimony getting is that God responds to prayer. I am not saying in absolute terms that he does not, but I do allow that as a possibility. Because the Church makes extraordinary claims I won’t set a default position that failing to recieve a witness yields equal probability, ie, 50/50 on the Church is true vs not true. Instead I weight it more like 99.9% probability of not being true vs 0.01% probability of being true. From my position failing to get an answer isn’t exactly equal to “no”, but it is definately not a yes or even much of a mabey.
#25: Cowboy
I understand what you’re saying here. There is some Bayesian probability in this. No answer can imply different things, depending on the initial probability that the hypothesis is true. For something that is likely true, no answer could just mean that there is no answer “yet”, but it could still likely be true. For something that is likely false, no answer could help reinforce that belief.
Re Jed Rothwell
Okay Jed, your statement, coupled with your obvious connection to the issue has prompted me to look into the science of cold fusion a bit more. I do think scientists are correct in being very skeptical of cold fusion in general (mostly because of the grandeur of the claim). And it seems to me that calling it “fusion” may be a stretch. That is, my very minor investigation reveals that the microphysical process that produces the results seen in such experiments is still not well understood, even though there is a large amount of energy given off. It appears that many believe these results can be accounted for by regular electro-chemical explanations. So, perhaps it IS incorrect to dismiss the field of “cold fusion” in general, but it also appears misleading to imply that cold fusion is indeed nuclear fusion (it is not yet known).
Having worked on NIF at LLNL for a couple years, my understanding (I’m an engineer not a physicist) is that there are two agreed upon promising methods of obtaining nuclear fusion – inertial confinement fusion (ICF), and magnetic confinement fusion (MCF). It is of note that the fusion process is different than “ignition.” The fusion process has occurred using many techniques but without the accompanying E=mc^2 energy released. “Ignition” (it is hoped) implies the accompanying appropriate release of energy and has only been observed in hydrogen bombs.
jmb275 repeats mythes from the mass media:
“In science, as I’m sure you know, the idea is to falsify theories.”
No, the goal of science is to discover the fact of nature by experiment, and to falsify theory by experiment. Replicated, high sigma experiment is the essence of science, and the only standard of truth. Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times. These replications prove that cold fusion produces heat without chemical transformations, tritium, helium commensurate with plasma fusion, and other nuclear effect. That is irrefutable. Anyone who disagrees for any reason is wrong.
No one can unprove or disagree with instrument readings showing tritium at millions of times background, or heat ranging from 10 to 100 W with no input. The notion that such definitive results might be wrong flies in the fact of common sense and the scientific method. If such measurements could be wrong, no experiment would be meaningful, no knowledge reliable, and people would still be living in caves.
“There was clearly a sufficient number of failed experiments, coupled with alternative explanations for what Fleischmann and Pons observed . . .”
No such explanations have been published. I have thousands of papers on cold fusion. Not one of them refutes the calorimetry of Fleischmann and Pons or any other major experiment. Only about a dozen skeptical papers have been published, and all but one critiques theory, not experiment. The paper that attempts to find errors is here; read it and judge for yourself:
Click to access Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
There were 20 failed experiments in 1989, and 95 successful ones. There have been hundreds subsequently. The reason why the 20 experiments failed is now well understood. These reasons were mundane, and have no negative implications for the successful experiments.
“. . . together with a Cold Fusion research community that has too much groupthink, lack of independent analysis, etc. that for the most part, science considers cold fusion to be dead.”
If “science” considers cold fusion dead then why was the most recent conference sponsored by the Italian ENEA, the Italian Physical Soc., Chemical Soc., and National Research Council? “Science” is divided on this question, and science is not a popularity contest in any case. It is based on replicated experiments, not opinions.
The notion that cold fusion researchers are a small number of people outside the mainstream is ludicrous. On the contrary they are a group of ~2000 mainly distinguished professors who wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry. (I mean that literally; that is the title of the textbook Bockris et al. wrote.) They include, for example, 3 Nobel laureates, the people who designed and operated the tritium facilities at Los Alamos, PPPL and BARC, and the former Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, who is chairman of the next conference.
The people attacking cold fusion in the mass media are mainly from fringe of science and journalism. Cold fusion researchers are dead center. That is not how things are portrayed in Scientific American, but that is a fact, easily confirmed by looking up the resumes of the researchers.
“OTOH, science has a way of eventually figuring out the truth . . .”
How do you know? There are hundreds of examples of discoveries that were originally suppressed and sometimes lost, such as the laser. If some have been lost permanently you would have no way of knowing.
I see no evidence the science is better at figuring out the truth and preserving it than any other institution, such banking, farming, aviation or programming. Many vital facts and important discoveries in these other fields have been lost or mangled by foolish people, leading to disasters such as bank failures, air crashes, and the Vista Windows operating system. There is no reason to think that physics or chemistry is less vulnerable to human weakness than these other fields.
Ah, I’m sorry Jed, I published my comment too soon. I read through some of the stuff and decided my comment was inappropriate. I thought I would/could change it quick enough. So now there’s a disconnect in my comment (which I changed) and your response. Sorry about that. Re-read my response. I think cold fusion has merit, though it appears to me it is not yet known what process causes the increase in energy.
As to your response I’m going to ignore the parts of your comment that seem to be an attempt to argue over semantics. I have a sufficient background in science to know a thing or two about it and its philosophy.
Here’s my question to you. It is clear that “cold fusion” has an attached stigma. It is clear that our energy problems are not being solved by “cold fusion” research in the same way we hope ICF will. Could you please respond with an honest (not defensive, not victimizing) explanation of why this is? Why is it that the two main avenues of fusion research are ICF and MCF and not cold or hot fusion? Is there legitimacy to any of the derisive claims regarding cold fusion, or is it all just ignorance and lies?
Perhaps the problem is all in terminology. Perhaps when we think of “fusion” we think of thermonuclear ignition. To me, cold fusion does not fit that bill. If cold fusion is a set of interesting electrochemical reactions that produce heat ostensibly by nuclear means, perhaps it is mis-named. I’m not arguing, just wondering.
That’s cool. I think the evidence is all around us. Banking, farming, aviation, and programming all use science as a mechanism of discovering their related truths. What banker doesn’t use advanced mathematical optimization schemes for setting interest rates? What farmer isn’t interested in the right nutrients in his soil? And of all things, aviation relies on science extensively for understanding complex gas dynamics, structural dynamics, etc. etc.
You wrote:
“I have a sufficient background in science to know a thing or two about it and its philosophy.”
So do Martin Fleischmann and Julian Schwinger. It may be that their philosophy is more old fashioned and experiment-based than yours. As Schwinger put it in a discussion of cold fusion: “Have we forgotten that physics are empirical?” (As opposed to being based on theory.)
“It is clear that our energy problems are not being solved by ‘cold fusion’ research in the same way we hope ICF will.”
They are not being solved, but the people at DARPA and in the Chinese military who are funding this research believe they might be, and so do I. The researchers would make much faster progress if they had funding and access to equipment.
“Is there legitimacy to any of the derisive claims regarding cold fusion, or is it all just ignorance and lies?”
I suggest you compare the derisive claims to the literature, and see for yourself.
The resistance is caused by academic politics. This happened with many previous discoveries such a the laser, amorphous semiconductors, the MRI, and the discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria. I often quote Townes’ autobiography, describing the extreme resistance he met when he tried to invent the maser and laser. Bohr and many other distinguished scientists opposed him. Rabi and Kusch told him: “Look, you should stop the work you are doing. It isn’t going to work. You know it’s not going to work. We know it’s not going to work. You’re wasting money. Just stop!”
As far as I can tell the leading opponents are ignorant, not lying. They tell me they have not read any papers on cold fusion, and that seems to be the case. Their claims are not debatable, or borderline, or distortions; they are ludicrous. For example, skeptics often claim that the power from the reaction is extremely low and difficult to measure, whereas in fact it has sometimes ranged from 10 to 100 W with no input. It seems to me that only a person who knows nothing would make a claim so weak that a quick look at the literature disproves it. This reminds of the creationists who claim that Darwin never attempted to explained the development of the eye. (See “The Origin of Species” chapter 6.)
The paper I referenced above (Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) contains many ludicrous skeptical claims. There are only a dozen or so other papers and four books (Huizenga, Taubes, Close and Hoffman). It isn’t hard to review the entire range of skeptical claims. I summarized most of their arguments here:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
One opponent may be lying, because what he said on CBS “60 Minutes” contradicts what he reported to the DoD, but perhaps he forgot what he wrote earlier. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#CBS60minutes
“Perhaps the problem is all in terminology. Perhaps when we think of ‘fusion’ we think of thermonuclear ignition. To me, cold fusion does not fit that bill.”
That’s certainly true.
“If cold fusion is a set of interesting electrochemical reactions that produce heat ostensibly by nuclear means, perhaps it is mis-named.”
The electrochemical reactions are only indirectly related. Electrochemistry is a means of loading deuterium into the lattice. The effect can be achieved by other means such as gas loading or ion beam loading, and it often continues after the electrochemistry stops, sometimes for hours or days.
“‘I see no evidence the science is better at figuring out the truth and preserving it than any other institution, such banking, farming, aviation or programming.”
That’s cool. I think the evidence is all around us. Banking, farming, aviation, and programming all use science as a mechanism of discovering their related truths. What banker doesn’t use advanced mathematical optimization schemes for setting interest rates?”
I believe you have that backward. Bankers developed mathematics thousands of years before modern science.
The combination of techniques, rules and traditions in science are unique to that institution, but each of these elements can be found in other institutions, and each was developed long before science emerged. You can say the same about the combination of skills mastered by cooks, programmers or stained-glass window-makers. Every job calls for a unique subset of skills unlike any other job, but no single skill is unique to that particular profession. James Conant described the origin of modern science: “. . . two streams of human activity, separate until the 16th century, gradually came together. These were abstract reasoning, as represented by Euclidean geometry, and experimentation as represented by the work of the metallurgists who over the generations had improved the methods of winning metals from the ores.” – “Modern Science and Modern Man,” 1952
In other words, there was nothing new about the skills of science. It was a new combination of skills, and a new emphasis, but the skill-set was readily recognizable in older institutions such as Edo-period Japanese forestry and metallurgy.
Academic science is not notable for being careful about the truth. On the contrary, other institutions tend to be more vigilant. There is no penalty for publishing half-truths or nonsense in the scientific literature whereas engineers who publish nonsense lose their license, and pilots who believe technical nonsense lose their lives.
Well, I’ll have to just leave this topic as “undetermined” in my mind. Unfortunately I don’t have time to really look into it. But I do appreciate the push back from you as I can see there is certainly more to the story than is commonly thought.
I did look at some of this. One thing that raises a red flag for me is the nature of the rhetoric, websites, and groups that promote cold fusion. They seem to exhibit some of the traits of fringe groups that want justification. They tend to victimize themselves and call out others. The analyses on these sites don’t sound like impartial observers, but like people who are truly invested in selling a product, in this case, one that nobody believes. For example, the website newenergytimes.com is very dismissive and critical of ICF and MCF even though those methods clearly have the most promise for thermonuclear ignition (something cold fusion is probably not capable of). To scientists this type of rhetoric will not help the LENR/CANR case.
Okay. I’ll admit to not being an expert in banking, mathematics, or science history. The point I’m trying to make is that just about every field, occupation, etc. is benefitted greatly by modern science, and in many cases, built on it. The fact that the laser, MRI, etc. have now been accepted by modern science attests to the point I was making that science eventually reveals the truth. I’m an aerospace engineer and we do what I consider science every day. Yes, it’s engineering, but I believe the same methods apply and same formal process is followed. The aerospace industry is built entirely on the back of Newton’s laws, and we continue to benefit from sound scientific analysis. Perhaps my definition of science is more broad than yours. I don’t believe that farmers would be as successful if they were less aware of the chemical breakdown of the soil, the biology of the crops they raise, etc.
But I really think we’re just running into semantic arguments here. I don’t have a particular love of academic science (even though I’m in that field) and don’t think it represents pure science or anything like that. And it definitely has problems. I do not agree that there is no penalty for publishing half-truths or nonsense. There IS most certainly a penalty. It will be the lack of funding, the lack of recognition, and disapproval in the community. And I know it happens because I’ve seen it happen. But I confess I am not in a pure science, but in an applied science, so maybe there is some difference there.
Honestly, it sounds like you’re a little down on academic science in part due to your work on pushing against that system. In the end, I do think it is a problem in science that the community tends to cling to tradition too much and dismiss claims that go against the grain. It’s too bad, but I guess we’re all human.
You wrote:
“I did look at some of this. One thing that raises a red flag for me is the nature of the rhetoric, websites, and groups that promote cold fusion. They seem to exhibit some of the traits of fringe groups that want justification. . . .”
Well, if you read only one chapter of Townes autobiography, you might get the same impression. You have to bear in mind that Rabi and Kusch really were oppressing him. He was not paranoid. As he said, if he had not had tenure, the laser would not have been discovered.
If you have any doubt that cold fusion is dogged by rabid academic politics, read the attacks against it in the mass media.
Anyway, if you don’t care for the politics of cold fusion I suggest you ignore them, and concentrate exclusively on the technical literature instead. Avoid the mass media, because it has only politics.
“The fact that the laser, MRI, etc. have now been accepted by modern science attests to the point I was making that science eventually reveals the truth.”
Again, how do you know? Suppose other discoveries have disappeared without a trace. You would not know they are missing, would you?
I am sure that techniques have disappeared in programming, because I myself know some of them. I once purchased a Windows-centric program to do a task I need done every morning. It took 20 minutes. I rewrote it using old fashioned batch processes in Pascal, circa 1975, and it ran in 2 minutes. One reviewer of Windows 98 remarked that it seems that Microsoft programmers were all born yesterday.
Gregor Mendel’s papers on genetics were published in 1866, but they were ignored and forgotten. There may be many others like that. It is likely there are. Martin Fleischmann often describes papers in Nature from the late 19th century and early 20th century that others have forgotten about. Twenty or 30 years ago I heard a lecture by Adm. Grace Hopper describing data structures and verification techniques that have not yet been implemented, and that would be a major improvement over what we have now. Her ideas have been forgotten, even though she was one of the most brilliant & famous programmers in history.
A group of engineers at a British university built a scaled down working version of the Newcomen engine. They discovered many aspects of it which had been forgotten completely since 1712. Obviously, these details were forgotten because there was no need to remember them, but it may be that other, commercially valuable information has also been lost.
There is no telling how much has been lost from basic science, or from any field of engineering.
I’ve appreciated this discussion. I, too, have been ignorant of cold fusion since the flurry of articles back around the time of the initial announcement. Perhaps it will be like Wegener and continental drift. It took decades before the “official” scientific establishment accepted his ideas (which were built upon some previous ideas as well).
This is one difference between science and religion. In science, ideas may be initially rejected but as evidence builds up, eventually everyone essentially HAS to accept true ideas as true (I could argue the semantics of that statement, but won’t).
Religion is different, as no one can truly PROVE something that is always true. It is a much more individualized experience. For everyone that has an answer that one church is true, someone else has a different answer. For every person healed by a blessing, there is someone who had an equal blessing and died. And so on. It all comes down to faith.