http://pesn.com/2006/07/11/9500290_Scientific_Method/ You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > July 11, 2006

Scientific Method worthwhile in 'fringe' energy too

A call for the same level of scientific rigor in cutting edge energy technology research as is required in mainstream science, not more, not less.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"

-- The Scientific Method, 2006          (with apologies to Mark Twain).

Opinion

by Patrick Vessey <patrick {at} vbpl.fsnet.co.uk >
for Pure Energy Systems News

Like many other normal, open-minded individuals who have followed developments in 'over unity' energy research for some time, I've frequently felt a visceral desire to bang the heads of skeptics and believers together. All too often, arguments between the two groups arise out of differences in faith, not in facts: on the one hand, a belief in the inviolability of existing scientific dogma; and, on the other, an implicit acceptance that mainstream science has nothing to offer them.


It is perhaps unfortunate that, in the current context, the Scientific Method is so named. In reality, it has little to do with 'science', and much to do with common sense. Over the centuries that mankind has followed the principles of observation leading to hypothesis, in turn leading to predictions, which in turn are tested by experiments, generating further observations to restart the cycle, the Method has served us well.

Pivotal to the success of the Method has been the concept of objectivity. The Method does not care whether its application leads to conclusions that support existing scientific paradigms, or whether it provides irrefutable proof that unknown forces are at work. So why is it so frequently spurned in some areas of research?

I started with a quote, and here's another, usually attributed to Carl Sagan, that appears with depressing regularity on fringe science discussion groups: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Rubbish. Claims of any nature should be treated equally and fairly under the Scientific Method. Whether a given experiment builds upon currently accepted knowledge or, as can be the case in alternative energy research, is pushing at the boundaries of our understanding, the Method demands application with equal rigor to both.

Whilst it may demand such balanced rigor, it doesn't always get it. Scientists are human, and suffer from the same frailties as the rest of us. In the past this human factor has led to anomalous experimental data being conveniently overlooked, and entire tracts of potential investigation effectively becoming off-limits, due to any combination of peer, political or funding pressures.

However, it is in these very same fringe areas that the strengths of the Method are at their most valuable. For example, today's active research into LENR-CANR (aka Cold Fusion) phenomena (3,000 published papers, with about 1,000 in peer reviewed journals) wouldn't exist had pioneering experimenters like Pons and Fleischmann not observed the accepted tenets of research. By following the Method, they ensured that their work could not simply be written off -- no matter how hard certain establishment interests have tried to -- as that of cranks or charlatans.

The negative power of orthodoxy has long been recognized as an issue in scientific circles. However, its insidious presence in fringe research is, sadly, all too often overlooked -- and orthodoxy in these areas is frequently a stronger and more destructive force than in mainstream science.

A topical example can be found in the recently resurgent Joe cell community. Although alternative theories have been discussed, the prevailing view within that group -- formed without the benefit of any rigorous research -- is that their cells are powered by orgone energy. Whatever the validity of this supposition, it's a telling example of orthodoxy arising out of faith, not facts.

Holding tightly to an untested orthodoxy, and largely failing to follow the Method in their research, believers frequently alienate mainstream science - and often take a perverse delight in doing so. A large body of knowledge and expertise that may be needed to make the dreams of believers become reality is thus denied them.

Few would question the pressing need for mankind to make rapid progress towards the delivery of alternative energy systems. If they are sincere in their stated aim of reducing our planet's dependence on existing energy technologies, those working in certain fringe areas need to stop treating their activities merely as an enjoyable hobby, and to start applying some intellectual rigor to their investigations.

Similarly, those in the mainstream of science need to move beyond their facile calls for "extraordinary proof", and to begin actively helping in that quest through the application of the Method. Otherwise, they should honestly question their own motivations for participation in the alternative energy arena.

Whether skeptic or believer, all involved need to remember that the Scientific Method is simply a way of doing things -- one that is objective, tried, tested and trusted. It is as equally applicable in fringe areas as in the mainstream. It's a valuable tool. For all our sakes, use it.

# # #

Feedback

Outside-the-box approaches require extra patience

On  July 12, 2006, Leonard DiAsio <email > wrote:

My desire is to put things into perspective.

A handful of enthusiasts scattered throughout the globe are funding their own experimentation with whatever meager money and resources they have available.  This is the demographic make-up of the Joe Cell Group.

Demographics such as this cannot be overlooked.  While not an excuse for not following the Scientific Method, demographics certainly shed light on the situation because they play a primary role in how the research is being conducted. 

I hold in high regard each individual who has picked up Bill William's dropped torch and toils in solitary to duplicate Bill's results.   I am certain every member of the group would rather have two or three fellow researchers at his side, assisting the effort. If even one among them succeeds, our understanding and knowledge of this illusive form of energy will have increased immeasurably. 

As to the existence of orgone.  How does one explain the Shocker Bottle?  The person selling this product has years of experience with orgone yet maintains several units because of their sporadic reliability.

Also, nobody claims the internal combustion engine to be the ideal mechanism for tapping into and utilizing orgone.   A Joe Cell connected to an engine may turn out to be the most indirect, bass-ackwards way of utilizing this form of energy. 

One last reminder. [***] reported that some devices under test stopped running when their builder left the room?  I am not implying impropriety on the builder's part; I am implying that forces are at work here that mainstream science is just now beginning to recognize.  I recommend reviewing the movie "What the #$#% Bleep Do We Know" and reading "The Hidden Messages in Water,"  by Masaru Emoto.

Reply

* * * *

Polemics Undermine Writer's – not Alternative Researchers' – Position

On July 12, Mary-Sue Haliburton wrote the following:

In an email with a nicely balanced tone, Vessey says, "… the sheer volume of anecdotal evidence leads one to believe that there is real substance to the Joe phenomenon.  The main thrust of my argument would not have been contrary to this view, but rather how we should approach investigating that phenomenon." (Ref. Email from P. Vessey, 24 June 2006.)

However, I'm not seeing the same balance in the shorter second version of this opinion piece. Here, Patrick Vessey states: "Although alternative theories have been discussed, the prevailing view within that group - formed without the benefit of any rigorous research - is that their cells are powered by orgone energy. Whatever the validity of this supposition, it's a telling example of orthodoxy arising out of faith, not facts." 

In this core paragraph – which replaced several paragraphs in his earlier draft article – the author merely assumes that the view within the Joe cell group represents "faith" and that it did not arise from any scientific thought process.

Further, he expects the reader to agree with him on this point. I don't, and for the following reasons.

The onus is on the author making such a statement to show that the independent backyard researchers are using mere guesswork or "jumping to conclusions" and just fiddling around. By quoting from their writings or from personal interviews with individuals involved in this endeavor, Mr. Vessey would have shown that this is the case.

In an earlier version he had some extra material, some of which I challenged. In a covering email he states that he's decided not to tackle my humorous piece about "orgone whisperers" directly, and instead submitted this boiled-down -- and poorly-substantiated -- version of that longer article. I had hoped for more detail than was in the first draft, not less.

Vessey stated that he was sticking to discussing methodology, rather than the theory in question, since he regards all attempts to describe the Joe cell as "pure speculation."

Considered strictly from the point of view of analyzing a written argument, offering no exploration of how the Joe-cell researchers arrived at their conceptual framework is a gap in logic. Therefore, there is no reason for readers to accept the central assumption in the above paragraph, nor to allow our attitudes to be swayed by the use of denigrating terms like "supposition". Without the supporting data (in the form of quotes from emails, FAQs, or publications), this is a somewhat loaded word in context, and illegitimately used.

In an earlier email Mr. Vessey had cited the remarks of Joe himself in 1993 who admitted that he knew nothing about orgone. I pointed out that this was hardly made that individual an authority on it, and suggested that he look into orgone science himself. Going at least back as far as Wilhelm Reich's studies would have given him an overview of orgone research which would be a solid basis on which launch a counter-argument.

I felt that this would be necessary background, requiring in turn some strong evidence to support a contrary conclusion that "orgone" power represents an unscientific belief, which is the implication of this article.

He does not appear to have taken up the challenge, as neither the foundational understanding of orgone, nor the contrary evidence has been offered. Instead, he seems to take it as "given" and "by definition" that (a) orgone is not scientifically valid and that (b) the independent researchers did not engage in any scientific methodology before or after setting up this conceptual framework.

The point is not proven by this essay.

In the absence of proof in the form of quotes proving otherwise, a reader would be equally within his rights to infer that this group of researchers had gathered observations that eliminated other theoretical options. Thus they were led to adopt as a working hypothesis the idea of "orgone power" as a possible explanation and a framework for further testing.

It seems to me that to base a working hypothesis on preliminary observations would be compatible with the Scientific Method as outlined by Vessey! Therefore, the Joe Cell research community is proceeding at least partly on the basis of science, even if they are using a non-dominant theory (i.e. one not funded by corporations because no profit is expected from sales of "orgone" – though that assumption could be wrong too!)

It is up to the Joe-cell researchers to write up their experiments describing methods and observations, and outline the reasoning that led them to take on this working theory. For example, an orgone meter could be used to detect and measure this energy said to flow in a working Joe Cell. Has anyone tried that as a way to confirm or deny the hypothesis? (Researchers are invited to contribute data if available.)

As best they can with limited resources, the backyard researchers can share this scientific data among themselves. These would allow them to determine whether the theory continues to explain their results or whether it is falsified by some contrary data. If that happens, will anyone be able to come up with a new working hypothesis?

This is mid-stage for scientific method as outlined above. They can make predictions and carry out practical tests  – to the extent possible without benefit of funding, laboratories, or even safety of family as well as self. One hopes they can continue collecting and analysing observations -- and being willing to let the observations lead to a conclusion, and to a new hypothesis if necessary,

Of course we note in passing that Williams was ordered to destroy all his notes along with his prototype. It's hard to prove scientific facts when hostile interests, apparently with a paradigm to shore up, want to prevent such proof from being found and published.

While I agree with this Patrick Vessey's right to express his views recommending using the scientific method, shortcuts and slanted terminology do not prove the case.

Vessey also says:

"Holding tightly to an untested orthodoxy, and largely failing to follow the Method in their research, believers frequently alienate mainstream science – and often take a perverse delight in doing so. A large body of knowledge and expertise that may be needed to make the dreams of believers become reality is thus denied to them."

I would dispute several parts of this paragraph.

First of all, calling the orgone theory an "untested orthodoxy" seems to be a smear tactic since it's hardly an orthodoxy. Calling them "believers" is a tactic to makes it appear that only people in "fringe" areas "believe" while the "mainstream" are "objective". We know, however, that many in the "mainstream" are strong believers in reductionist materialism, and stick tightly to its precepts regardless of how much evidence accumulates that would tend to undermine their cherished thought framework.

Also, use of the verb "failing" is a loaded term because it is applied only to those struggling to do practical research without funding, without secretaries, with little equipment, and with no backup. On what basis does he say that Joe-cell researchers have not been following the scientific method? None. In a total absence of quoted sources, his case has not been proven. 

Because this is the focus of this opinion piece, the author should provide an example of a Joe-cell researcher who is not following the observation/hypothesis/testing approach. Is the basis of the accusation of "failing" based on the mere fact that they are proceeding from a different theoretical basis than conventional propulsion research?

Who is alienating whom? I think Vessey has shifted the onus of refusal from the (so-called) "mainstream" to the (so-called) "fringe". The use of these terms is loaded as well. These words represent mainly the locus of social and financial clout rather than necessarily a higher level of scientific verifiability.

Vessey urges a more professional approach: "…those working in certain fringe areas need to stop treating their activities merely as an enjoyable hobby, and to start applying some intellectual rigor to their investigations." 

Does he define "intellectual rigor" as basing research on more conventional theory? One might conclude that is so from the email in which he referred to the idea of "putative" orgone as being a barrier to involvement by real scientists. If it were due to orgone not being real (as opposed to not being permitted), and not to fearing ostracism, career blockage, and loss of research grants, this could be accepted as an argument. Since it's this word orgone that has him upset enough to write piece that is somewhat shy of intellectual rigor itself, I am willing to bet that is so.

But how can rejection of the orgone hypothesis by means of an argument without supporting data be accepted as an example of rigorous thought? Doesn't that unproven assertion merely require belief from the reader? Is that intellectually more respectable?

Hardly.

I respect the scientific method.

I also respect validity in interpretation and analysis, as part of a rigorous approach to writing. For starters, major core assertions should be backed up with quotations from primary sources – with, of course, permission to use the quote.

As a result of this rather lame article claiming that Joe Cell researchers are unscientific, we now have the sad denouement of those same individuals accepting this like a this shabby garment they've been condemned to wear and agreeing that it fits them – even if it doesn't.

Leonard DiAsio says:

"While not an excuse for not following the Scientific Method, demographics certainly shed light on the situation because they play a primary role in how the research is being conducted."

Sigh. I hope nobody abandons the orgone theory just because they've been held up to ridicule one more time. I hope that the hypothesis will be tested and results – whether positive, negative or inconclusive – will be reported for all to see, weigh and debate.

Reply

On July 13, Patrick Vessey <patrick {at} vbpl.fsnet.co.uk > responded:

In my article, I attempted to be very careful with my use of language, so as to prevent any misunderstandings.  As the author, I must accept some responsibility for failing in that task – as the feedback received to date suggests that I have.

Mary-Sue highlights my use of terms such as 'believer' and 'fringe' to suggest an implied denigration on my part. This is not the case – I was simply using the semantic shortcuts that those of us involved in alternative energy research are familiar with, and which are in daily usage to characterize certain groups and topics. She further states that my language suggests that I view the mainstream as objective, implicitly suggesting that I hold a contrary view of the fringe. Again, she is mistaken - as my original piece rightly points out, all is not rosy in the world of reductionist, materialistic mainstream science, either.

As clearly noted at the top of the article, this was an *opinion* piece. It was an expression of my point of view and, as such, I felt that it was unnecessary for me to provide corroborative evidence to support the position that I took.

However, as I noted above in my response to Leonard, I am an active member of the Joe cell community myself, so was not writing simply from a speculative viewpoint, but rather one based on my experiences of the realities of that group’s dynamics.

Unfortunately, both Leonard and Mary-Sue make the mistake of conflating several of my points, and end up assuming that my intent was to write a piece 'rubbishing' orgone theory.  This is far from the case.  In relation to the Joe cell, my argument was that as no, I repeat, no rigorous investigative research has been performed on the phenomenon, it is premature to presume that the modality of cell operation is orgone based.  It is equally premature to assume that any other mooted theory may be more valid. What we in the Joe cell community need to do is engage in a rigorous and systematic investigation to reach the truth; I am pleased to say that there are signs that this approach is now starting to evolve within these groups.

Lest there be any doubt, I must reiterate a point made earlier – it is possible that the cell may operate outside the bounds of known science. However, this in no way invalidates the Scientific Method as a suitable tool for determining this fact.

In criticizing me, Mary-Sue makes a telling point about the need to follow-up on original sources, rather than speculating about topics that one is ill informed on, or where one’s 'knowledge' is based purely on the speculation of others. In response, I simply point out that I have read original works by Reich and DeMeo, so am probably not quite as ill informed as she believes. I would earnestly urge anyone who holds with the orgone theory of cell operation to do likewise.  Similarly, whilst Hilton’s book on the cell should be a 'must read' for all investigating it, few in the on-line groups appear to have done so.  As the old saying goes: fail to prepare and you prepare to fail.

Mary-Sue’s opinion piece on 'orgone whispering' was indeed the prompt that led me to write my article. However, it was the assumption inherent in her composition that orgone was behind cell operation that caused me to put pen to paper. My argument was, and still is, that without adopting a rigorous, scientific approach to investigating the cell, that the orgone theory *of cell operation* remains pure speculation.

There are currently many theories being discussed on-line as possible explanations for the Joe phenomenon. Whilst welcoming the diversity of thought, I would again suggest that there is only one methodology that will help us to make genuine progress in our understanding - the Scientific Method.

See also Tools - index at FreeEnergyNews.com PESN (Pure Energy Systems News) - feature stories Today in Free Energy™ - daily, by OSEN. This Week in Free Energy™ - Weekly five minute blurb.

Page posted by Sterling D. Allan July 10, 2006 Last updated July 13, 2006

EMF Safety Store LessEMF.com is the place to buy Gauss meters, RF meters, shielding.		Poor Man's Guide to Wind and Battery Power

All truth passes through three stages:    First, it is ridiculed;    Second, it is violently opposed; and    Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
		"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot." -- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2010, PES Network Inc.