Real Plasma Physics & the Art of Denial
I don't listen to ignorant people that are scientifically lazy, who refuse to read the appropriate materials, and who refuse to do their homework.
Then you should stop listening to yourself, as the self portrait you provide is stunningly accurate.
I've seen denial before, but this group is in a class by itself.
Surely one of the great ironies of all time is
Mozina applying the word "denial" to anyone other than himself.
To begin with, we have
Mozina on record as denying the fundamental validity of the scientific method at its core.
Mozina maintains consistently that only controlled laboratory experiments produce results that are scientifically meaningful. So in one fell swoop he denies the validity of all sciences that rely on field observations for their data; natural scientists, such as zoologists, observing creatures in the wild, meteorologists, geologists, archeologists, astronomers, & etc. In
Mozina's mind, none of these disciplines have any legitimate claim to be "science".
I have repeated this fact several times for well over a year, and
Mozina has yet to even acknowledge the existence of the posts, let alone actually respond. The following is from February 1, 2010.
Question 2
The standard definition of the word "empirical" does not require a controlled experiment, or for that matter, any kind of experiment at all. Why do you feel justified in changing the definition of a word (any word, but in particular this one), and then complaining when the rest of the world does not use it your way?
For standard usage of the word "empirical", see for instance the
definition from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Case in point
I quote from the book
An Introduction to Scientific Research by
E. Bright Wilson, Jr.; McGraw-Hill, 1952 (Dover reprint, 1990); page 27-28, section 3.7 "The Testing of Hypotheses"; emphasis from the original.
"In many cases hypotheses are so simple and their consequences so obvious that it becomes possible to test them directly. New observations on selected aspects of nature may be made, or more often an experiment can be performed for the test. There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation, but ordinarily in an experiment the observer interferes to some extent with nature and creates conditions or events favorable to his purpose."
Wilson says "
There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation," and that is the way the entire scientific community currently operates. Are you now telling us that the entire scientific community is using a flawed concept of empiricism?
Certainly, this level of denial should exclude
Mozina from any intelligent discussion before it even begins. The evidence from these pages indicates that this idea is valid.
Next, we have the significant hypocrisy of
Mozina demanding that only controlled laboratory experiments will do, but then denying the existence of phenomena we can actually see happen in real plasma, once the desired experiments are brought forth. I first posted a small list of papers referring to laboratory experiments demonstrating magnetic reconnection, and links to laboratory experiments with webpages, in 2009 ...
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e.,
Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008;
Cheng, et al., 2008;
Yamada, et al., 2007;
Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007;
Yamada, et al., 2006;
Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.;
Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the
Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.
At no time has
Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that
Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the
Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".
And, as we see from the comment above, we can add to this a peculiar form of denial, namely
Mozina's denial that it is possible for Hannes Alfven ever to have been wrong about anything, as if he were God incarnate. How can anyone be expected to take such an attitude seriously?
The plain, simple, and very obvious truth is that
Alfven was wrong. He was certainly not the first Nobel prize winner to make mistakes, and he certainly won't be the last. He was certainly not infallible, and when it comes to magnetic reconnection he blew it. We have an entire scientific discipline of plasma physics in the world today which proves that fact beyond any shadow of a doubt. The only denial going on here is
Mozina's tragic denial of reality itself.
