http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1994/illpres/problem.htmlBrown insisted for years that the
norborenyl cation didn't exist, even after some rather telling NMR results were obtained, including some magic angle spinning experiments in the solid phase at 3K.
I realize that Olah's work was not limited to non-classical carbocations, but his work on that subject was important enough to him to have presented it in the context of receiving his Nobel, and the fact that Brown was
wrong on the subject is specifically mentioned in a Nobel poster.
I am also aware of the nature of quantum mechanics, and the point of my little diatribe was simply to point out that in this case, publication of
research showing that an electron was a particle did not prove to be the last word. As we know, the alternate descriptions were made by father and son and that both interpretations have merit, depending on the context one is applying.. In this case, I was not claiming that the first Thompson was
wrong, only that his description is incomplete. I doubt that J.J. Thompson was disappointed or disagreed with his son's research.
The point of my admittedly
hostile post, was simply to explore "the appeal to authority" argument that is represented by the notion that solar energy can replace nuclear energy, because some guys - solar researchers all - published a polemic in a scientific journal, not a research paper mind you, but a commentary. The general case is that "appeal to authority" whether it represents the citing the mere fact that work (or opinions) are published in particular journal, or by a particular person, can lead to incorrect or limited conclusions. If you look at the vague post starting this thread, a google result no doubt, it is pretty clear that the implication that somehow the notion that "solar could displace nuclear" was
proved by publication in
Nature Materials and that the argument was irrefutable.
I could make "an appeal to authority" argument based on Olah, by the way, since many of his lectures make pro-nuclear energy statements - his recent work is on methanol fuel cells - and he proposes nuclear energy as the source of the energy to make this methanol, something he notes in the addendum to his Nobel autobiography posted on the internet. (If you read the biography, one can see that Olah has worked both as an industrial research and an academic chemist.) Still this argument would represent an "appeal to authority" inasmuch as Olah is not an expert in nuclear systems:
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1994/olah-autobio.htmlNote that he also says kind things about solar, wind and other non-greenhouse gas forms of energy, which is, I think, proper. (No one should object to any form of energy that is greenhouse gas minimized - although some forms of such energy are clearly more cost effective, more scalable, and much more safe than others: Nuclear energy does extremely well on this score.)
But as a scientist, a chemist at the pinnacle of his field, and as a citizen, as a human being with broad experience of the world and high intelligence, Olah certainly has a
right to make arguments on a subject and I believe he is
right on this score, his non-expert status in nuclear technology notwithstanding. The world seems to agree on this subject too. Just last year Japan opened enough reactors to completely match the world wide increase in renewable energy of all forms, the yield of renewable energy of all forms still being slightly more than one exajoule.
I think you are relatively new to this forum, compared say, to me and to my antagonists. You are a very good poster; I enjoy speaking with you because I can clearly see that whether or not we agree, you are sharp. Still you may not be aware of my many faults, some of which include real aggression. The issue of the global climate change crisis scares the shit out of me, evoking some real passion and indeed anger. I despise poor thinking on that subject and do get quite heated at times - just as Dr. Brown sometimes got quite heated about norborenyl carbocations.
Clearly my representation that holding an academic position "is not a real job," is in fact offensive and it cannot be applied to
every academic. If you are
such an academic, I fully and freely offer you an apology and state categorically that I was wrong. We all know academics who work very hard, who do good work and who bear the weight of office politics and the like as much as any other kind of laborer.
Now I will add a qualification to my apology: The fact remains nonetheless that there are a subset of academics who wish to overstate their authority based on the fact that they are able to impress some subset of wide eyed of credulous freshmen, particularly those at less competitive universities and colleges: We all know the type. And then there are the type who attempt to assert that authority beyond the "Biology 101" classroom, who basically become insufferable arbiters on subjects they clearly know nothing, or little, about because they characterize themselves vaguely as "scientists," as if being a "scientist" confers oracular vision. Sometimes these people are people who have never confronted an industrial problem - who do not appreciate scale - and their vague pronouncements clutter the musings of an already confused and pliable public.
It is not "ad hominem" to assert that a particular individual or even a class of individuals is not qualified to rule on a subject in such a way as to declare his or her statements as fact. Everyone can and should have an opinion about technical matters in which they may not be expert, but the fact is, that in some cases - life or death matters like global climate change for instance - we need to give the
experts the
ultimate say. Some people
must be overruled in any culture for the safety and well being of that culture as a whole. Therefore it is important to delineate what kinds of sources people use in arguments, of what their skill set in interpreting these sources consists, and what the nature of their experience in addressing similar issues is.
In my personal relationships at DU, I have many good friends. I also some fierce interactions with people for whom I have little or no intellectual, moral or personal respect. Often I do let my attempts to do what I have described in my last paragraph - expose types of thinking - stray into the area that could indeed be construed as, or even
defined as "ad hominem." Recently I have been trying to move away from this approach, and limit myself more to the facts of the case. But as a human being, sometimes I write here when I am tired, or cranky, or impatient and I do cross the line. Sometimes my work here is better than at other times. I'm not perfect, but in the present case, I do believe I'm right.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
