Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Jehochman

Cold fusion is a fringe topic

Cold fusion was a field of science begun in 1989. After about ten years of failure in attempts to verify the initial experimental results, Cold fusion faded into the realm of fringe theory, as reported in 1999 by this source, Physics Today. This is the top ranking reliable source in Google for a search on "cold fusion". Google relies on PageRank, and algorithm modeled on an idea borrowed from academia: the source cited (or page linked to) most often is probably the most authoritative.

Pcarbonn has used Wikipedia for advocacy

Others have presented evidence that Pcarbonn has engaged in Wikipedia:Advocacy (a guideline I have proposed). He advocates the view that cold fusion is disputed field of science, rather than a fringe theory.

• Pcarbonn states that he is engaged in ideological struggle on Wikipedia. [1]
• A cold fusion advocate confirms that Wikipedia has been used to enhance the field's reputation. [2]
• Diffs cited by ScienceApologist in a recent ANI thread:
  • Uses Pioneer anomalie to confuse the discussion; argues for inclusion of non-reliable sources.
  • "Pons is a respected scientist"
  • Stonewalling or wikilawyering
  • "You have not demonstrated that cold fusion is the minority view in reliable, published sources. Please note the quality of the publishers in the list above."
  • Asserts that cold fusion is an ongoing scientific controversy. No plausible reading of the reliable sources would come to that conclusion.
  • Mischaracterizes what a source says.
  • "CF papers have been published in the top third of all journals." No reliable journals are publishing these papers.
• Spinning Cold fusion: [3][4][5]
• Spillover to other articles: [6][7][8]

Pcarbonn has been warned

Pcarbonn has received feedback about editing problems on multiple occasions. In addition to the noticeboard discussions linked in the request for arbitration, I found these diffs from his talk page relevant:

• Verifiability of content: [9][10][11][12]
• NPOV: [13]
• Pseudoscience warning: [14]
• WP:NPA warning: [15]
• Userpage soapboxing: [16]
• Advice to diversify interests: [17]

ScienceApologist has good intentions, but faulty methods

ScienceApologist has been under ArbCom restrictions against incivility per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted and using multiple accounts Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist limited to one account. These restrictions are set to expire 2008-11-19.

Disruptive editing

He has violated decorum or engaged in pointy behavior much too frequently.

• SA's posts to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion are neither calm, nor particularly helpful toward resolving the dispute.
• Edit warring on WP:FRINGE: warning
• Canvassing: warning
• Editing Elonka Dunin after User:Elonka placed him under a topic ban.[18][19][20] warning from Morven warning from Avruchremark by Newyorkbrad
• Continue editing of Elonka Dunin after warnings: [21][22][23]

Valuable contributions

On other occasions, SA has provided valuable input, helped enforce NPOV, and helped discourage sock puppetry:

• Removing unverified or poorly sourced content: [24]
• Removing linkspam: [25]
• Barnstar given by me for helping stop sock puppetry: [26]

Many more productive diffs can be found, but I will not overload the page.

Use of multiple accounts

There are also concerns that SA may have used multiple accounts to evade scrutiny, resulting in a stern warning from User:Lar. [27] SA filed an MfD on the checkuser request, which was courtesy blanked. I have linked to the last revision prior to blanking. Hopefully that won't get me banned, but I think this information is highly relevant to the present discussion. Though some folks view me as a supporter of SA, I have checkusered him on three occasions.

Disruption of ban discussion, which lead to this request for arbitration

When the recent thread at WP:AN on Pcarbonn's topic ban started, the discussion was at first calm and rationale.[28] When ScienceApologist added inflammatory remarks, the discussion quickly deteriorated towards a non-result.

• Attacks the mediator: [29]
• Antagonizing other editors, personal attacks: [30][31][32]
• "Pathological hooey": [33]

This was the proximate cause of my filing this request for arbitration. Had SA stayed away from that thread, I believe it would have come to a proper resolution one way or the other.

Pattern of behavior and prior attempts at resolution

These are not an isolated incidents. When SA loses his cool, he tends to disrupted discussions with shrill rhetoric and accusations presented without evidence.

• Off the cuff remarks that Twoggle should be banned: [34][35]
• Accuses me and Elonka of stalking: [36]

I have tried every possible way I know of to encourage SA to focus on productive contributions and refrain from disruption. Unfortunately, I and other editors have not been completely successful yet. Here are just a few sample diffs:

• Advice on toning down the rhetoric: [37]
• Be calm, be careful: [38][39][40]
• Attempt at mentorship with User:AGK and User:Fritzpoll: [41][42][43]

Kirk shanahan has engaged in COI editing

Kirk shanahan (talk · contribs) is another single purpose account that engages in the advocacy against cold fusion.

• Apparent COI editing, citing K. Shanahan: [44][45][46][47] (30 October 2008)
• Editing has continued up until 31 October 2008 on Cold fusion [48] and until 3 November 2008 on Talk:Cold fusion

Evidence presented by Enric Naval

Disruption to articles can be caused without editing the articles themselves

As seen on the similar homeopathy case, a single editor can disrupt articles even if he never edits the actual article. It's just enough that he wikilawyers on the talk page about interpretation of sources. Bringing again and again the same studies will tire out all neutral editors who have better things to do.

No adequate tools to deal with this

The community does not have adequate tools to fend off the above behaviour, so it all depends on individual hard-boiled editors who have to basically kick the POV pushers out of the talk page in unfashionable but effective ways, like I had to do myself here and here, so they won't scare neutral editors out of the page.

The real point of this case: are cold fusion's walled-gardens representative of scientific consensus or are they fringe

Mind you, Pcarbonn is way lees disruptive than Dana, and he actually raises good points: should the peer-reviewed meta-reviews published at journals where only cold fusion proponents edit be considered reliable sources? Can they be used to indicate scientific consensus or are they just walled gardens that should be considered as fringe sources? See Vesal's statement for a better explanation.

The problem will solve itself by clarifying if we take walled-gardens seriously as part of mainstream scientific consensus, or if we take them as a fringe escission from consensus.

Note: Cold fusion is probably just one of the scientific disciplines where the walled gardens are bigger and more reputable-looking, that's why it has reached arbitration first. I suppose that more will pop up over time, although I can't pin-point a specific field.

Evidence presented by Pcarbonn

Clerknote: Contents removed. The removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. Furthermore, this was too long (~1800 words). Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present.--Tznkai (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented Greg L

I used to design PEM fuel cells and am a named inventor on many patents in the technology, (my involvement outlined here). I also wrote much of our Thermodynamic temperature article and have some facility with thermal kinetics. I can speak from an engineering point of view to the current state of affairs regarding cold fusion. I believe the Physics World Mar 1, 1999 article, Whatever happened to cold fusion? should be considered as the paradigm example of a reliable source with regard to cold fusion and should serve as the template for Wikipedia to use in setting the tone and summarizing the current state of affairs on the subject. It is troubling to me that scientists often can’t reproduce certain cold fusion experiments and, even when they do, the reactions disappear in a few days. This state of affairs bears many of the hallmarks of the polywater fiasco, where trace contamination by human sweat was ultimately found to be the culprit. Unless and until there is a breakthrough development in cold fusion that drastically and convincingly changes the status quo, anyone with a consistent pattern of editing on our Cold fusion article that has the effect of ennobling cold fusion and giving the field greater credibility than would be supported by the Physics World article should be considered as editing against the consensus. And a refusal to conform with that consensus view should be considered as disruptive.

I find, based on my review of others’ statements regarding Pcarbonn’s past behavior and based on my brief interaction with him here on his talk page, that he is an advanced amateur with no first-hand experience in cold fusion. He says he has spoken with researchers, which I believe, but given the reality of the situation, those who are currently working on cold fusion should be considered as operating on the fringes of science (“out in left field” in many cases). The evidence for Pcarbonn’s basic grasp of scientific fundamentals at this point is sketchy and elusive so I have little to go on, but I find his arguments for being pro-CF to be less than persuasive.

What is absolutely clear to me from reading the many complaints on this page is that we can not have individual editors with advocacy points of view deciding for themselves what certain scientific papers mean (it’s fun to think we’re all Johnny Quest) and edit fringe-science articles in a manner that flouts what the most reliable sources have concluded on the subject. Such behavior necessarily slants the articles until they no longer present a proper and balanced view of the subject matter. Doing so also unfairly puts other editors at a disadvantage because they must read and and interpret and try to understand what the scientific papers are really saying if they are to even begin debating the fringe advocate. Besides, in many cases it’s all a vain effort; based on my interactions with Pcarbonn, it is absolutely impossible to logically argue with some of these editors. In Pcarbonn’s case, he raised a point on his talk page about his basic motivations and I showed him how there were infinitely superior means to accomplish that end. Then he raised a technical point about radium. It made zero technical sense whatsoever and I soundly refuted that one. Then he asked a rhetorical question about government funding and another editor, Verbal, pointed out how the truth was self-evident in what I had previously written. Pcarbonn’s response to all of this? He simply dismissed everything we had been discussing (points he raised) as irrelevant and stated that none of it should prevent him from presenting the “scientific evidence in the scientific controversy.” *Sigh*.

Pcarbonn is cherry picking snippets of scientific articles in order to present a pro-CF picture. This amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Further, his circuitous and evasive nature effectively makes it so his arguments aren’t falsifiable, and, thus, he can not be reasoned with in a scientific sense. It is my personal believe that if Pcarbonn does not quickly conform to the basic desires of those who have brought this complaint, that he be quickly and decisively dealt with. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. In Evidence presented by JzG, below, JzG provides some excellent examples of how “there’s lies, damned lies, and misrepresenting and cherry picking scientific papers.” JzG cuts straight to the heart of what pro-CF editors like Pcarbonn are doing. I can also see that ScienceApologist has gotten discouraged and withdrawn his post (and stated he is leaving Wikipedia for good) as a result of what he feels are mischaracterized personal attacks against him by Jehochman. Having ScienceApologist pull out of Wikipedida entirely would be most unfortunate. My hope is that he has just gotten all pissy and is on a pout right now and will change his mind after there is a proper disposition of this arbitration.

  I do hope the arbiters will review and consider ScienceApologist’s evidence here before he withdrew it. As ScienceApologist pointed out, there are many other Wikipedia articles like Homeopathy and Water fluoridation controversy that suffer from this “Pcarbonn phenomenon” and ScienceApologist has been working valiantly to ensure those articles reflect what reliable sources say about the subjects. We just don’t want valuable editors like these to become so darned discouraged.

  I earnestly urge the arbiters here to rapidly and permanently ban Pcarbonn from from Cold fusion. Note that in my statement on the request for arbitration, I initially defended Pcarbonn. I had (and have) no axe to grind here. After digging into the facts after that initial post and after limited direct dealings with Pcarbonn, it has become abundantly clear to me that Pcarbonn has a faith-based view of CF and doesn’t sufficiently understand the fundamental basics of science (or writes in a way that unfortunately makes it it appear that he doesn’t). He degrades the quality of our Cold fusion article. Greg L (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eubulides

Cold fusion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community

I searched Google Scholar for peer-reviewed literature about the cold fusion controversy (as opposed to the scientific literature on cold fusion itself), and found that the articles uniformly considered cold fusion to be fringe. Here are all the recent sources I found that devoted a substantial amount of space to the topic:

• Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 44 (13): 1916–22. doi:10.1002/anie.200462084. So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.
• Little M (2006). "Expressing freedom and taking liberties: the paradoxes of aberrant science". Med Humant. 32 (1): 32–7. doi:10.1136/jmh.2004.000205. It took two years for the cold fusion episode to be laid to rest. There are still scientists and technology companies that retain an interest in the Pons and Fleischman work. Eventually, it was decided that what Pons and Fleischman had achieved was no more than a variation of a well known phenomenon, which could not be scaled up to provide a usable energy source.
• Ackermann E (2006). "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: a publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion". Scientometrics. 66 (3): 451–65. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0033-0. The epidemic rate of growth is ultimately unsustainable however and dies out once the initial discovery fails to be confirmed or is otherwise found wanting by the scientific community. Two of the more famous examples of unsuccessful information epidemics are Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion.

I also found a review of a university-press book that might be helpful, though I have read only the book review, not the book itself. Here's the citation to the book review:

• Yang A (2006). "Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies [book review]". Nova Religio. 9 (3): 133–4. doi:10.1525/nr.2006.9.3.133. Part Two is more empirical, and focuses on what are often called 'pathological sciences' such as research into N rays, polywater, and cold fusion ('pathological' because these have been dismissed by mainstream science) ...

and here is the book:

• Bauer HH (2004). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-07216-2.

Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above, Pcarbonn wrote "there is no basis for the view that the sociological controversy should be presented but the scientific one shouldn't". I agree with this, but adding a sociological-controversy section to Cold fusion was not the intent in mentioning these sources. The intent was to find whether recent peer-reviewed sources about the controversy consider cold fusion to be fringe. Lewenstein 1994 (PDF), the source Pcarbonn mentioned on this topic, is neither recent nor peer-reviewed. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

Pulling out of arbitration...

There exists "evidence" presented by Jehochman that flagrantly mischaracterizes me. If we cannot come to an agreement on how to present it, I will leave Wikipedia for good.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Olorinish

I have edited the cold fusion page and its talk page many times over the past 1.5 years (sometimes as 209.253.120.204, 209.253.120.158, 209.253.120.198, or 209.253.120.205, before I decided to log in for every edit), and have disagreed with Pcarbonn on many issues.

Like many others, I support a temporary topic ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion page because of his frequent POV-pushing (see examples below).

I think his comments about "winning the battle of cold fusion" should carry very little weight. Wikipedia authorities should judge editors on the quality of their edits and their arguments, not their opinions.

In contrast, I do not support a ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion talk page. I believe he honestly wants to improve wikipedia, and I think wikipedia should establish a precedent that editors will not be banned from discussing articles because they make poor edits, except in more extreme cases than this. In general, the way to counteract POV problems is to increase the number of editors looking at an issue, not limit it. Olorinish (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn has pushed the pro-cold fusion POV

Regarding two articles he wanted to mention: [49] [50]

When describing "replication" of cold fusion: [51]

By redundantly over-promoting the potential benefits of cold fusion: [52]

By removing a mainstream journal article (Hutchinson) critical of cold fusion: [53]

By calling a blog post favoring cold fusion more significant than articles in Physics Today and Discover critical of cold fusion: [54] [55]

Comment on Pcarbonn's section on pro-CF articles in respected journals

I think people should be aware that none of the four journals Pcarbonn mentioned above frequently report on the field of nuclear reactions, or fields close to it. The "multidisciplinary" Natuurwissenchaften reports almost exclusively on biology topics. Olorinish (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG

Clerknote: Contents removed. Some of the removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. On the whole it was far too long (approximately 4100 words) Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present.--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit

On sources for science articles

I've seen this mistake repeatedly in Wikipedia: some journalist's interpretation of a science review is considered by some Wikipedians (JzG and Pcarbonn in this case) to be more reliable than the review itself. The 2004 DOE report is primary source from a journalistic point of view, but certainly not from a scientific point of view. From the latter POV, the opinion of the science journalist Toni Fender, writing for the Physics Today magazine, carries virtually no scientific weight relative to the DOE review itself, but it can be useful in summarizing the main findings thereof. In case of ambiguities (and this article has some), the review itself should be the authoritative word.

Mainstream sources present CF as surrounded by some controversy

Anyway, assuming that this Physics Today 2005 article is the mainstream view, here is my pragraph-by-paragraph outline of it (full text is free):

• The 2004 DOE report echoes the findings of the 1989.
• CF has fallen into disrepute after the Pons and Fleischmann's claims, but a few continue research under professional adversity.
• Bureaucratic details about the 2004 DOE report: format, participants etc.
• Reviewers were split on evidence for excess power, but even those reviews supporting the finding of excess power pointed out several issues with the experiments.
• CF researchers (from SRI and MIT) saw the mere existence of the 2004 report as vindication that their efforts were scientific.
• DOE does not recommend earmarked funding for CF, but recommends considering individual proposals in specified areas that "could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field", and adds a quote of DOE deputy director that this is nothing unusual.

Science also had an news article about the 2004 DOE review [56] (full text requires subscription), with the title "Outlook for Cold Fusion Is Still Chilly", and the opening paragraph/abstract was A Department of Energy review of "cold fusion" has generated some heat but very little light on the controversial subject. The article points out that "when DOE decided in March to conduct a review of cold-fusion research, the move raised eyebrows among mainstream scientists who have long since abandoned the quest." And that "the outcome appears to reinforce the views of both sides, although it’s hard to tell because the reviewers didn’t meet to hammer out a consensus." It then goes on to detail that some reviewers were extremely skeptical, and that one called CF researchers "true believers", but it states that "about one third of the reviews, however, were receptive to the claims of cold fusion". And it concludes observing that while DOE has not changed its official position on CF, MIT CF researcher Hagelstein was also pleased that "a study should be funded if a proposal is strong. You can’t ask for much more than that." (Hagelstein words)

In 2007 Nature, reported in the news section that the American Chemical Society has allowed CF as a topic at their annual meeting, but the article overall is less positive than the abstract suggests. CF research is not as fringe today as it has been presented by some above, mostly using older sources.

One additional point is necessary however. Besides the CF researchers often mentioned in mainstream science publications, a number of individuals that have entered the field have dubious qualifications, and advance non-scientific theories even according to other CF researchers. This Washington Post article provides supporting evidence.

Positions and behavior of Wikipedia editors on CF

ScienceApologist

SA has argued for presenting cold fusion as pseudoscience, [57] although the consensus on Wikipedia eventually rejected his position. SA has also put CF in the same bag as astrology in his opening statement to this case. [58] If you'd have to pinpoint his position in the spectrum of opinions on CF presented by mainstream sources above, it is apparent that SA's opinion of CF is fairly extreme, perhaps similar to that single DOE reviewer that called CF researchers true believers.

JzG

JzG reverted the CF article to the FA version dating back to 2004, which stated that CF is pseudoscience, and he edit warred a bit over his action [59], [60] (not with Pcarbonn). The FA version predates the Dec. 2004 DOE report on CF, it lacks any inline citations, and has only a handful of references. It's extremely unlikely that the 2004 version of the CF article would pass even GA, let alone FA review today. These arguments were presented, and JzG's action has been rebuked by others in the AN thread that followed JzG's bold time warp [61].

Pcarbonn

New Energy times is a magazine that has a strong pro-CF bias, with streaks of advocacy. This can be easily verified by their FAQ on CF, which contains "questions" like What are the benefits of LENR besides providing a cleaner, sustainable supply of energy? Pcarbonn occasionally writes articles for this magazine, some of them documenting his editing of Wikipedia CF article [62], however that magazine had previously published [63] another article on Wikipedia's presentation of CF.

Although Pcarbonn's central position, on and off site, is that controversy surrounds CF, some of his off-site statements, like the comparison of Copernicus and Galileo with Fleischmann and Pons [64], make his position suspiciously close to that of a true believer.

Pcabonn occasionally argues for the enemy (as he claims), but he does this by opposing sources of different reliability and prominence [65]. A DOE review, which includes scientists of varying opinion on CF, does not need counterbalance from a single pro-CF researcher, even if the latter is also a review.

A more egregious example of the same behavior are source categorizations like this. Mixing, and especially ordering sources of varying academic reputation, based on the letter, rather than the spirit of Wikipedia rules for reliable sources, with the pro-CF ones coming on top is clear evidence of POV pushing. Acording to Pcarbonn, the top source is a pro-CF review published in IJNEST, a journal with no ISI rating (Web of Knowledge access needed to verify). By his ranking, Pcarbonn would want us to think that this dubious review, because it's published in a journal, no matter how obscure, trumps the DOE review, or the report thereof in Physics Today. This argument would get laughed out the door in any serious scientific discussion. (If there is still doubt about this, I'll be happy to detail the argument for every source in that list, but the presentation would be fairly long.)

Pcarbonn also cherry picks mainstream sources out of context. [66] In this case, the article was about CF being accepted back at ACS after 18 years, but Pcarbonn made no mention of that fact, and just cherry picked a quote of Robert L. Park as conceding defeat. Doing this in a summary is tendentious.

Edit warring by ScienceApologist and Pcarbonn

Although not breaking 3RR in 24hrs., both SA and Pcarbonn (with the occasional participation of other editors) have edit warred in November 2008 over the choice of language used in the lead [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. In this example, both SA and Pcarbonn argued for the most favorable wording towards their position, and both attempted to white wash or omit numbers they did not like. Words in dispute were proponents vs. advocates; 2/3 is a majority, while (the other) 1/3 is a "cooked statistic" etc. Some of this falls in WP:LAME territory, demonstrating that both editors are engaging in a bitter POV struggle.

Olorinish

Practically the entire section of evidence Olorinish provided above proves one thing: he is even less knowledgeable than Pcabonn about CF, but he is very opinionated against CF. Details.

Statement by Kevin Baas

Clerknote: Contents removed. The removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present.--Tznkai (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ludwigs2

Logic and prejudice

I am not involved with the Cold Fusion article, having made a total of 5 posts on an RfF. However, I'd like to use my brief exchange with ScienceApologist as an example of a more pervasive problem with fringe-type articles, which has a bearing on this case. The exchange began with:

1. my first post: I suggest that SA's suggested version was factually incorrect in one place and mildly weasel-worded in another.
2. SA's response: this is merely contradiction - he claims that there is no factual error and no weasel wording, without discussion.
3. my response: I try to argue the point again, using an explanatory example.
4. SA's response: this response (an attempt to counter my argument above). it contains two errors of logic, which I address in my next post.
5. my response: here I point out the two logic errors in SA's post: ad hominem reasoning, where he tries to discredit my argument by suggesting I'm not qualified to make it, and arguing from consequents to antecedents, because he suggests that CF research is unreliable because it's fringe
   • example - ad hominems: What is with this rhetoric, Ludwigs? Have you made a detailed investigation of the sources? Do you have a degree in physics or chemistry? What is causing you to be so didactic about this subject?
   • example - arguing from consequents to antecedents: because unlike relativity, cold fusion is fringe and marginalized: not accepted by the mainstream and we need to treat it differently accordingly. I am confident that weasel wording only makes sense when the wording falsely gives the impression of marginality or falsely gives the impression of greater acceptance.
6. [SA's response: rather than addressing (and possibly resolving) the apparent errors of logic, SA chooses to resort to ad hominems once more.

After that, I withdrew from the conversation.

The greater problem here is that SA and several other editors have a distinct prejudice against fringe topics that disrupts the ability to discuss those topics with careful consideration. The hallmark of a fringe theory is that it is a supposedly scientific theory that does not produce reliably measurable results; the extension of this to the assertion that these theories do not produce reliably measurable results because they are fringe theories is pure fallacy. It's equivalent to this: yes, it's an observable fact that a large proportion of students who do well in college are of Asian descent (as a professor I can vouch for this, or you can look up the stats); but no, it's an error (as well as a form of prejudice) to turn that around and say that Asians are better students (or worse, that Asians are smarter). The second statement makes assertions about 'innate characteristics' of Asians that is not implied by the first.

Clearly, wikipedia would not allow prejudicial statements to be included in any article about race - we would not let a statement like 'Asians are smarter' into an article about any Asian race, regardless of how many reliably sourced academic statistics were offered in defense of it. It would be considered synthesis at best, and excluded on those grounds. Yet certain editors on Fringe topics consistently argue that fringe researchers are not 'researchers' but 'advocates', and that reliably source fringe publications (even those in credible scientific journals) should be excluded as advocate positions. Why should we prohibit the first but not the second?

I'm all for science - I have a cute cartoon I might post here later to that effect. But mainstream science is not 'correct' science and it's not 'superior' science. It's effective, and it's functional, and that's all. The efforts to cast fringe theories and the people who pursue them as somehow dysfunctional (rather than merely non-functional) ruins articles and spoils their talk pages with endless rubbish. If you want to put a stop to the problem, that's where to start - reign in that anti-fringe theory prejudice (and the logical fallacy on which it's based) and the problem will go away.

Evidence presented by Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerknote: Contents removed. The removed text looked more appropriate for the evidence talk page or possibly comments within the workshop page. Please make it clear what evidence supported by clearly marked and easy to read diffs you have to present. --Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.