User talk:Brian Josephson/Archive 1

Edit warring
You are edit warring at Energy Catalyzer. If you continue to revert the article to your preferred version without establishing a consensus for your changes on the article talk page first, I will ask that your editing privileges be suspended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How extraordinary -- I was just about to suggest myself that the issue be resolved on the talk page! However, I differ in one respect. I think most people in physics would judge me more expert in matters of physics than those who have been removing the content (I am Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cambridge University, in case you did not know, and the person whose profile I looked up is a computer scientist, hardly good training for understanding issues of calorimetry.  His comment, if I am recalling the right person, clearly demonstrates that he knows little about what is involved), in consequence of which the default should be to keep the content until the issue is resolved on Talk.  The whole problem with Wikipedia, as this 'warring' clearly demonstrates, is that amateurs have as much say as experts in determining content. I might add that barring a Nobel prizewinner from editing w'pedia pages would hardly enhance the reputation of w'pedia -- Brian Josephson (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a Nobel laureate affiliated with a large, well-established, highly-reputable institution, you enjoy access to resources and connections that most scientifically-minded Wikipedia editors can only dream of. If you feel that the Energy Catalyzer is worthy of close investigation and endorsement, then I would encourage you to use those resources to arrange open, honest, and independent tests of Rossi's device in order to answer the multiple serious criticisms it now faces.  I look forward to your peer-reviewed publications on the issue.
 * In the meantime, while I believe that your long experience and accumulated accolades deserve a suitable level of respect, I cannot accept your implicit expectation that your words should carry exceptionally greater weight than those of other editors who have a reasonable measure of scientific training. As an experienced physicist, I am sure that you are aware that expertise (even Nobel Prize-worthy expertise) in some subdisciplines within the field of physics does not imply that an individual will have exceptional skills or qualifications across the entire spectrum of the physical sciences, nor even necessarily across all of physics.  The award of a Nobel Prize can allow a scientist significantly more freedom to pursue unusual projects, sheltering them from the potential career damage that a younger or less-established researcher might face.  However, this shelter and power of reputation can also have subtle harmful effects on the scientist himself; loosely speaking, I would describe this as the "I'm a Nobel laureate and you're not" problem.  Linus Pauling's vitamin C megadosing and Luc Montagnier's homeopathy work represent a couple of examples where the "Nobel Prize halo" inappropriately adds luster to bad science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider this comment. In my opinion it violates WP:NPA, our policy against personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you on the relevant page, but I will reword the comment. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikiquette_alerts (out of date) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

commenting about other editors
here you doubt the intelligence level of people who are opposing your edit. Implying that people oppose your edits because they are not intelligent enough to understand the nuances of your reasoning.

Please use Occam's Razor and consider the following scenario: people do understand your edit, but they are opposing it because it goes against some content policy or content guideline. Some editors will think that it goes against No original research (concretely WP:SYNTH). Or that this sort of assertion has to be sourced to an outsider of the CF field, possibly to a work about sociology of science or about metrics of information, like the articles by Ackerman, Bettencourt and Simon. Other editors might not agree about the relative significance of the rise. Some other editors will point at WP:RECENTISM and demand sources that lag a few years/months behind the facts in order to get perspective, etc. Several editors have given you reasons for opposing your edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric, I don't think 'no original research' is a credible reason for opposing my latest edit. A key question is whether the editor who said it was OR had looked at the Britz plot? If not, he would be guilty of BD (blind deletion). I'll post the plot if there's a mechanism for doing this so that all can see the point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy [], comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Please do not comment about the lack of intelligence of editors. Olorinish (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I'll check it out and amend it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher
Hi Brian, there's currently an attempt to have the above deleted as non-notable. I've been doing some reading in an effort to expand it to avoid deletion, and I found a photograph of you and Dr Rauscher in the 1970s at a conference in Spain (p. 173 of David Kaiser's new book). I therefore wondered if you'd be willing to glance at the article and comment at the AfD. See Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination). No worries if you'd rather not. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put in a comment. That must have been the Cordoba conference 'Science et Conscience'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but some of the editors who wanted to see the article deleted are now objecting to its contents, specifically the lead and first sentence.


 * The first sentence currently says: "Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist with an interest in parapsychology."


 * One editor wants to change this to: "Elizabeth A. Rauscher" is an American physicist and parapsychologist."


 * Another suggested: "Elizabeth A. Rauscher is an American physicist and paranormal researcher."


 * Or "Elizabeth A. Rauscher is a former physics researcher ..."


 * Of the first two options (currently being discussed here), would you say it's more accurate to say "physicist with an interest in parapsychology" or "physicist and parapsychologist"? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2nd seems better to me in view of the fact that parapsychology looks like a pretty significant interest of hers. From the refs. it looks as if she started as a physicist and then moved into parapsychology. BTW, the Targ w'pedia article has something later by her but there's no link so it is unclear how it is related to the one in her own article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just add that 'parapsychologist' seems to me a more neutral term than 'paranormal researcher'. After all, we don't say 'chemical researcher', do we?  Using an adjective has its own confusing connotations, the way 'historical researcher' suggests perhaps a researcher of the past, while 'historian', by virtue of being a technical term, makes it quite clear that the reference is to someone doing history.

Edit war over cold fusion
Dear professor,

I understand your point:
 * These surveys do not however take into account recent publication history. The Britz survey, which includes more recent data, showed 'a subsequent rise' in recent years rather than continuing decline, contradicting the 'pathological science' ascription.

But I think your statement is better suited to the talk page than to the article itself. You seem to be trying to convince your fellow contributors, than describing a viewpoint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation
Sire, in the Beyond belief symposium of 2006 you have been mentioned as a supporter for reincarnation, yet I failed to find any references or quotations that I may use to study it further, from your point of view. Thank you. :) Curiositly yours -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my attitude is that I put it in the class 'quite likely to be true'. The reason you've not located any references or quotes of mine on the subject is that I've not written anything on it! Brian Josephson 09:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Which are some facts that would support the existence of reincarnation?--5.15.46.186 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this user page is not a helpline. Try Google Search. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations and implications
It is not acceptable for you to continue to make (implicitly or explicitly) allegations of a cabal or conspiracy or squad of editors with some vaguely-specified but utterly repugnant conflict of interest. While I realize that you disagree with me about the nature or seriousness of your remarks, I have asked for independent comment at Wikiquette alerts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (out of date) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarfatti
Hi Brian, thanks for your comment on the Sarfatti page. I was about to try to find an email address for you (I didn't realize you were a Wikipedian) to ask for your advice. I'm trying to rewrite this, and I was hoping for input from someone knowledgeable in the area to make sure I'm using the right sources and interpreting them correctly.

Would you mind keeping an eye on the article as it develops, and giving me a nudge if I've misunderstood or overlooked something? Any input like that would be much appreciated—bearing in mind that I can only use what has been published, per WP:V and WP:NOR, including material published (and self-published) by Sarfatti himself. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence and sources
I've observed your interest about Energy Catalyzer, and I have a question: if you really are the Nobel prize Brian Josephson, what does have caused this interest? Why do you think the experiment to be considerable? ^musaz   †   14:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. Back in 1989 I accepted without question the general view that the CF claim was in error. Then several years ago a visitor gave me the 'Fire from Water' video (which you can see on Google Video I believe). This showed what appeared to be ordinary scientists discussing expts. in the usual way. It then, on a basis of a detailed study, seemed to me very likely that the scientific community had made an error.

The next stage was that I was in Boston for a conference, and before setting out I asked the late Gene Mallove if there was any possibility of seeing an expt. in the area while I was there. He arranged for me to visit Mitchell Swartz's lab. He explained how he measured the excess heat (it involved using a resistor as control). This seemed to be pretty straightforward and definitive. I have visited a number of other CF labs since.

So I am 2 steps up on yer average sceptic: (i) I have studied the evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand (ii) I have visited actual labs -- very important as you get pretty limited information if you just read about an expt., and you can ask questions.

Re the Rossi reactor, someone told me about this beforehand as they wanted my advice. Let me summarise by saying the evidence seems pretty convincing so far and overall hard to reconcile with either fraud or error. I have to say I find it pretty shocking the way w'pedia seems to work -- expertise seems to count for nothing, and I suspect that most people after studying what is happening would conclude that certain people are not interested in providing information but only want to exclude anything too positive. The rules surely allow some flexibility but just look at the way they wanted to highlight the failure of the patent application and allow nothing to be included about the positive side. And all this 'dog and pony show' stuff. Dear, dear! But then, I meet stupid people all the time, even scientists -- they will happily trot out clearly invalid arguments to disprove memory of water, ESP, etc. You might like to look at some of my videos/ppts on this, e.g. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/664718, Pathological Disbelief --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the awnser. I asked you that because i'm a student, and I think the experiment is a fraud being impossible to realize nuclear reaction at 800K in a small-volume space. There aro no scientific pubblication explaining what happens in the E-cat, and the inventors affirm not to know about the psysical process involved by the experiment. So I was a bit interested in the scientifical features that suggest you the experiment's validity. Regards, ^musaz    †   18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well -- nuclear energies would be enough. If you think it is fraud you need to say (a) how it was done despite the precautions being taken by the investigators, and (b) what would be the point in it, given that Rossi's contracts stipulate that no money changes hands until the buyer is satisfied. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These questions should be awnsered by the inventors, not by me or someone else. The inventor has to explane how does the invention works, and if his argumentations are acceptable i can value the physical meanings of the experiment. Other ways to deal the question are not scientific, because the heat they notice could have been preduced in a lot of fraudolent ways. ^musaz    †   14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a commercial device not a scientific experiment, so different criteria apply. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, i asked you because i thought you stated the experiment was a scientific experiment, and i didn't understand how you could have belived in it. In my honest opinion the experiment's fame is not sufficient to justify a wikipedia article, but I really thank you for the awnsers. Regards, ^musaz    †   13:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting distinctly confused so is best terminated at this point. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * However, I will just add that it is the invention's promise rather than its fame that justifies its inclusion in w'pedia. But would the 'cabal', or however they would prefer to be called, allow that to be talked about? I suspect not directly -- the cabal can always cook up their reason -- though if you read through the Ny Teknik articles in the references you can probably pick this up. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'cabal' would allow the experiment to be talked about if the invention's promise became true. If it happens, there will be a lot of authoritative souces that make the experiment a good wp article. ^musaz    †   10:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, different people will have different opinions as to what makes an article 'good' and, quite frankly, it seems (to me at least), that a lot of irrelevant arguments are being put forward (quite legitimately in view of w'pedia's rules) by people who don't have the expertise needed to make adequate comment. We'll have to agree to differ on that issue. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With the greatest respect, perhaps it has eluded you that users of Wikipedia have no way to verify the identity of editors. The consequence is that the credibility of content cannot be contingent on the credibility of those editors. Hence we have a hard and fast rule that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", as every editor is reminded with every edit. "I'm an expert authority and I say X is true" carries less than zero weight here simply because it demonstrates that the writer understands neither the audience nor the medium. On the other hand, experts who arrives normally bring a ready familiarity with and understanding of the significant publications in their field, so that wp:citing sources is more readily done for them. One area that experts often find troublesome at first is Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources over primary ones. This too comes down to the same cause. Our readers should not be asked to trust that pseudonymous editors are competent to assess the relative merits of primary papers. We instead await (or at least should await) secondary sources to see which results stand the test of time under the publication, peer scrutiny and review processes. Fortunately we have no deadline and can afford to wait for experts to publish reviews or other secondary texts in the subject literature. Regards, LeadSongDog  come howl!  18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What a way to run an encyclopedia! But I can't quite see how your remarks are relevant anyway as the references concerned are primarily secondary ones, having been reported in e.g. reputable technical newspapers which have high standards. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (In the talk page, Mats Lewan has made it clear that that is the category in which his articles should be placed). Tilting at windmills? --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd challenge, at least in part, the statement that editors are not verifiable as to their character and reliability at least. Looking at the totality of what individual editors do, I think one can build up a pretty good and I would say pretty reliable picture of those editors.  Some clearly understand the subject matter while some do not, some seem to make thoughtful contributions to the debate while others seem more interested in the book of rules (and, quite frankly, I think we could do without so many editorial interventions by the latter kind).  People whose jobs don't involve much in the way of making judgements of this kind may have more difficulty, of course.
 * And again, say an editor has a user name like 'Brian Josephson' or 'matslewan', people can look at what the w'pedia person is doing and what the person with the equivalent real name does and decide for themselves if they are the same. Fake writers don't often go without detection for very long; it's not like the world of art.
 * And I think experienced people, once they have appreciated that W'pedia is not a blog, will quickly pick up the point about needing secondary sources. After all, when one is writing a paper one gives references and is careful about the choices. One does, admittedly, sometimes say 'private communication', but normally only when the person cited has the relevant qualifications so there is some reason for people to trust what they say. And if you say you don't trust experienced people, I have to ask you, why? And if you say you can't make such judgements then I would say, just stay out of it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Running an encyclopedia this way certainly has numerous difficulties, yet openness has also brought substantial results. There are few other venues where so many disciplines intermingle so freely, with experts and near-illiterates contributing in their own ways. (Some even argue that vandalism exerts a constructive force, though on balance that's hard to support.)
 * In cases such as yours or Mats', where an editor voluntarily chooses to associate an on-wiki account name with their off-wiki identity it is, of course, possible (even simple) to make that association more or less incontravertible. Indeed you have both done that. But Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", where that "anyone" includes people who need or wish to protect their off-wiki privacy. It is also written for a worldwide readership with the widest possible range of background knowledge. While one reader will take as true anything he reads from any writer, the next will actually read the cited references to articles. As editors we have to cater to them both, we can't simply say "I trust author Z so you should too." The best articles have been based on tough vetting of sources, but they still cite them. Although someone writing in Phys. Rev. Lett. might be free to omit citations in support of statements which any BSc(Phys) would take as easily established or conventional, we do not have the luxury of leaving verification as an exercise for the reader. We strive to minimize the barriers to readers so far as possible without undue "dumbing down". An intelligent but innocent reader with some diligence should be able to understand what publications back up an assertion. Of course citation has the ancilliary benefit that in the process of reading those sources readers may gain a better understanding of the topic, but that is not the principal reason.
 * Similarly, we can not assume that a reader of Wikipedia will know how to, or bother to, look behind the covers of the editing process to find out which editor made a specific edit and then assess their credibility. It is intended and accepted that articles are reused by many different republishers, usually without the associated edit history and talkpage content.
 * Finally, in the all too rare case that an expert editor such as yourself can attend to an article, we want to make it possible for you to efficiently see the sources, so that any errors in representation of those sources within the article can readily be identified, explained, and corrected. We value your time and want it to have the most positive effect possible upon the quality of our collective product. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the title of this section to one that I think better reflects its content. In the main I agree with all that you've said, but differ to some extent on matters of detail.  One problem is that while I agree with the principle that articles should have suitable backup, a number of editors don't really know which sources can be considered a priori reliable.  Take the case of the reports on the reactor.  The point of a report as opposed say to an email or a blog is that the person's reputation is behind it -- if there is an error in a report that someone produces it reflects badly on that person in a way that something in a blog doesn't, just because reports are supposed to be carefully considered before they are released.  They may still contain errors, of course, but then the same applies to journal articles -- referees will spot obviously dubious papers or obvious errors but some things may not be noticed, and in any case in the case of data this has to be taken on trust (cf. the case of Schon, who got numerous fraudulent papers published before someone spotted something fishy).  In the case of the E-cat article, editors who seem to go by unreliable gut feelings rather than knowing what they are doing have tried to get characterised as unreliable sources and thus subject to removal references that add greatly to the value of the article.
 * Re what readers do, I think it is widely understood that w'pedia can be extemely useful but content should not be taken as necessarily reliable. I suspect that when people want to check on something they have read they will find it hard to judge just seeing where something has been published but will do a search to see how much other sources agree (the Ecat is a special case as for sociological reasons and because of the commercial aspects very little can be found outside the references in the w'pedia article).  I agree with your point that readers' background knowledge cannot be assumed and that good references should be given to help such people.
 * When I wrote, why don't you trust experienced people, I was referring to trust not by readers but by editors. Editors do have a chance to consider the status of other editors and should, where appropriate, be able to trust their judgements.  Readers in turn should be trust that the editors have acted appropriately.  But do they act appropriately always? Who will vet the vetters, as a Roman said once? I think that if someone uses language such as ???? For example, comments that certain editors make in reference to material under discussion make it plainly obvious that attention to detail by the writer concerned was virtually non-existent. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New Energy Times report on the Rossi 'Energy Catalyzer'
Professor Josephson, I don't know whether you have as yet seen the New Energy Times report on the Rossi 'Energy Catalyzer'? It seems somewhat damning, and I'd like to hear your opinion regarding the validity of the science-based arguments therein. Can I ask in particular whether you think that the diagrams "Conceptual Diagram of Correct Way to Measure Energy Balance" and "Conceptual Diagram of Incorrect Way to Measure Energy Balance" are valid criticisms of the tests previously done on the 'Cat'?

There are other matters regarding Rossi etc in the report which also seem to indicate a less-than-transparent approach (e.g. his 'factory' on the 5th floor of a Miami Beach apartment block), but that is rather by-the-by if the 'Cat' turns out to be nothing more than a way of heating water by mains electricity, as the NET article seems to imply - except for anyone who may have invested in the device... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Things are never as simple as they seem, especially when the 'Black Knight' is involved (see below), but I accept there may be problems with some of the measurements. In any event, I am in contact with the people who will be testing the 1MW device and am confident that they at least will use a rigorous measurement technique. The 'Black Knight' who runs the web site is not renowned for his interest in accuracy -- he has made two inaccurate statements about me in the past (a claim that I organised a lecture because I had a financial interest in the company owned by the lecturer, and a claim that I had used a Bushnell quote out of context) and, much more seriously, refused to make a correction or even allow comment.  In the latter case, he even removed the comment facility I had used to try to set the Bushnell situation straight.
 * Incidentally, Rossi claims the device continues to generate heat even when there is no energy input. If this statement is correct, then the reactor is a genuine device though it may not generate as much heat as has been suggested.  All this should become clear when the rigorous test is carried out.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd perhaps best not comment on the animosity between Steven Krivit and yourself, though it does put the NET article in a rather different light. As you say, the important thing is going to be the results from rigorous tests, and I look forward to seeing these - assuming that the apparent breakup between Rossi and Defkalion doesn't delay things further. This split seems to leave several questions unanswered - notably the disparity between what Defkalion had claimed to be doing, and what Rossi has said regarding the information he disclosed to Defkalion. All rather odd, but perhaps things will become clearer in the next few days. The again, perhaps not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Defkalion
I notice that the agreement between Defkalion and Rossi is at an end. I also noticed that, according to Daniele Passerini's blog, you will be present at the USA test of the 1MW plant... could you please confirm? 94.170.239.207 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all keen on travelling and will be happy to read the reports! By the way, I'll 'reject' your YouTube comment as it seems to me it was basically just a communication to myself.  YouTube does have a mechanism you can use to contact people directly (and I get notified by email when this has happened) (unless of course you are the user I blocked eventually because a pointless discussion had arisen and I did not wish to waste further time with that person, in which case it would not have got through to me).
 * I should add that I'm planning to add a comment on the Defkalion situation to the YouTube video as no doubt a lot of people will be wondering about this.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response; I've not had any pointless discussion with you (yet :), so yes I will use the other mechanism if needed. 94.170.239.207 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted that comment as I was able to check who I had barred and saw that it was a different person. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

E-Cat suggestion
Hello Prof. Josephson. According to some, you have agreed to participate in a 12 hour examination of the E-Cat on October 6. I just wanted to drop you a message to suggest an obvious idea. If time constraints eliminate the possibility of a control experiment, venting the hydrogen during the last part of the test and observing the effect on output could be an excellent compromise. Previous tests have not held the other test variables constant after venting. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to true critical thinking. Enslaved robot boy (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently the rumor was false, sorry to disturb you. Enslaved robot boy (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor
Hello Prof. Josephson! Could the E-Cat be considered (reliably sourced) a nuclear reactor? Some people disagree! Please share your thought at Talk:Nuclear_reactor.--79.119.214.15 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)