Richard P. Feynman
Cargo Cult Science
There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science"... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. * Caltech commencement address (1974)
Lectures on Physics
We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" o Volume I, 8-2
Engineers
In fact, the science of thermodynamics began with an analysis, by the great engineer Sadi Carnot, of the problem of how to build the best and most efficient engine, and this constitutes one of the few famous cases in which engineering has contributed to fundamental physical theory. Another example that comes to mind is the more recent analysis of information theory by Claude Shannon. These two analyses, incidentally, turn out to be closely related.
From: Wiki Quotes
Posts
3 comments:
I can't believe how ironic it is that you, Msimon, Supreme Commander of the IEC Fusioneer Legion, would have the balls to quote Feynman on pseudoscience. Did you actually read the whole commencement address? Tell me your thoughts on this passage, and who it reminds you of:
Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this -- it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.
I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person -- to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.
She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happened.
Tell me Msimon, exactly what kind of people do you think Feynman is talking about here? Take a look in the mirror. After the Google talk debacle, how many times (and on how many websites) have you stated that repeating WB-6 results would be of no intrinsic value? You pointed to Bussard's Valencia paper -- that 4th rate, zero-peer reviewed conference proceeding -- that claimed the extroadinary results acheived after a hastily executed experiment. And what was Bussard asking for on the basis of that paper? Move right to WB-7 and $200M in funding. Why, you yourself immediately bought into hype and donned your little engineer hat, sharpened your little pencil, and launched into a component search for the Open Source Polywell! You stated openly how you wanted your design to "grab people by the throats" and "go straight to continuous operation". Whatever happened to Feynman's suggestions of exact replication first? Apparently such a concept is not necessary for pseudoscientists like you.
You sir are a card carrying member of IEC Cargo Cult Science!! Thank you for the Feynman post -- it paints you for exactly what you are: a true believer of pseudoscience.
how many times (and on how many websites) have you stated that repeating WB-6 results would be of no intrinsic value?
That has not been my position for some time (mid-June is documented) if ever. In fact what I have stated is that WB-6 needs to be repeated as a continuously operating experiment to be sure what any results are not an artifact of pulsed conditions.
Yes - I wanted to grab people by the throats with continuous operation and fusing (under experimental conditions) p-B11.
In fact if you would check out the NASA thread you will see that even earlier than than mid-June I suggested that for engineering purposes a series of experiments would be a good idea. I still think so.
Really if you are going to debunk my points you should see how they evolved. I change my mind as I learn new stuff. In this particular case we need to know a lot more in order to do a 100 MW test reactor. If it is even possible. (my doubt level is currently at 10%)
In any case since it is not my money to spend I can "what if" all I want.
BTW I think it may have been Dr. B's position that a recreation of WB-6 was necessary followed by another experimental reactor and then a full scale prototype.
I have never thought that progression was wise.
Since I can't see a 100 MW prototype costing more than $50 million (including design and fabrication) I assume that the other $150 million was for experiments.
Personally I think we may need to do 5 or 15 experimental reactors in order to get the data for a full up prototype.
My understanding (and my information is second or third hand) is that Dr Bussard planned WB-7 to replicate WB-6 to both confirm WB-6s final results and as a demonstrator to skeptics.
WB-8s purpose is to develop the final details of a power reactor (Q>1). Because of the way the thing scales, Dr Bussard believed that there was nothing to be learned in further (Q<1) experiments. Well, we'll see.
At least up through WB-6 Dr. Bussard was using Deuterium due to budget constraints, Boron 11 was his preferred fuel, converting to it will add 50 million to the final power reactor cost. I think aneutronic fusion is well worth $50m.
Post a Comment