Comments on: Pentagon Science: Crazy Enough?

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:19:50 +0000

Sharon,
That paragraph did not argue for supporting anything — it said that a lack of evidence makes it frustrating for outsiders trying to judge. One assumes that the people responsible for funding programs have access to all information, classified or otherwise.
As for Remote Viewing, I suspect the reasons behind the US military RV project had little to do with the dubious abilities of psychics. The fact that it was “one of the worst kept secrets in the military” suggests other reasons for keeping it going, considering the Soviets may have believed in it.
David.

By: Sharon Weinberger

Sharon Weinberger — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:06:54 +0000

David,
Without judging the reality or non-reality of remote viewing, let me make a basic statement. Your last paragraph is the exact same argument made by those who support the use of psychics by the military (i.e. the lab results don

By: Sharon Weinberger

Sharon Weinberger — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:25:12 +0000

Yes, we have a system in place for judging

By: Haninah

Haninah — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:39:08 +0000

Then Ill shift the burden of proof onto you: how do you think the defense establishment should decide which ideas NOT to invest in? What proof would you accept that a fringe technology is not viable, or — which is very different — not worth spending the money that could be spent elsewhere?
These questions are not meant to be snide — Im genuinely interested to hear your answer.
Haninah

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:46:27 +0000

“My point is there is a difference between risky research and foolish research.“
But can anyone tell which is which in advance?
I would suggest that examples like Goddard and Whittle (and I could go on to others) show that the established authorities are not always good judges, especially when their credibility is at stake.
You could surely make a lot of money if you really could identify promising technology ahead of time.

By: Sharon Weinberger

Sharon Weinberger — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:51:06 +0000

Just a clarification regarding an earlier note in this discussion. I absolutely support investment in risky research. I would like to see DARPA’s budget increased; I would like to see the S&T goal back up at 3 percent of the defense budget; and for the Pentagon to take risks in new technology areas. Supporting research into nuclear isomers is something I also support. This field may some day possibly yield breakthrough in energy sources and propulsion, tell us things about our nuclear stockpile, or even just enhance our understanding of nuclear physics. But will low-energy triggering of hafnium-178m2 pave the way for a superbomb? No, at least according to the multiple experts who have reviewed this area, and scientists who tried to repeat the original 1998 experiment that supposedly supported this claim. My point is there is a difference between risky research and foolish research.
For example, I would say SUSTAIN (the Marine Space plane) or Walrus (the heavy lift airship) are very risky endeavors. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support investment in the technology behind these ideas. Even if the more ambitious goals don’t pan out, the technology could have other spin offs.

By: Haninah

Haninah — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:54:52 +0000

@David:
Off the top of my head, I think you just named the most “transformational” weapon to ever emerge from a non-fringe environment: the nuclear bomb. While there were certainly dissenters, the main stream of nuclear physicists realized well before 1941 that there was potential for a weapon to exploit the energy released in nuclear fission — that’s why so many countries were working on the idea during WWII. And when Manhattan did get underway, the manpower it tapped was nothing if not the heart of the scientific mainstream in the US — basically, total mobilization.
In general, it’s tough to answer your question, because the term “transformational” sort of implies that it happened suddenly, which implies that it sat in a lot of people’s blind spots. In general, though, it’s safe to say that most of the crucial developments in weapons technology in the twentieth century, including the great leaps forward, came from painstaking research within some sort of main strem. Consider the tank, the supersonic jet, poison gases.…
But even more in general, nothing that you’ve said refutes my original point that the validity of Goddard’s idea a century ago has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not isomer weapons have a future. That’s not a philosophical question, or even a historical one, but a scientific one.

By: Tech_manager

Tech_manager — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:28:31 +0000

Having worked in developing “fringe” technology for a non-DoD agency, I would like to add that the problem with Ms. Wienberger’s hypothosis that funding should only go to non-risky research means that 1) you had better be working on the right technology and have the right end product and 2) this approach will ensure only an incrimental increase in preformance (see for example the progress made in launch vehicles performance the last forty years). Now, on the other hand, the largest problem I have encountered in the “fringe” world is that most of these ideas are promoted by a handful of individuals who have most often self-serving goals because they have tied their career to proving this technology works. They usually love to trot out the trades that show off the best attributes and ignore or obscure the detriments (my favorite is anti-matter propulsion, how do you direct that blast, talk about a potential ray gun). I hope to be lucky enough to continue to do this type of work and do not phatom helping develop anything quite as ground breaking as radar(which I though was discovered from reflection of radio waves from large ships) but would settle for helping develop new and improved UAVs (which was considered fringe just 20 years ago).

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:28:36 +0000

“Every idea deserves its hearing, but it’s silly to trot out history’s greatest outliers every time some outlandish scheme fails to get funded.“
Obviously well-grounded research is going to be the basis of the vast majority of developments.
But when it comes to revolutionary developments, is is possible for them to come from anywhere other than the fringe?
I couldn’t think of any transformational developments that had not started off as crazy ideas. Perhaps there are some, but by and large they are, well, revolutionary, ie overturning the existing accepted order.
“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” — Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904.
“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.” — Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923
“The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.

By: Haninah

Haninah — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:42:21 +0000

Hambling’s examples are valid enough (well, two out of three: the radar example mostly demonstrates that the good things come when the establishment learns in fact to back off of crazy futuristic thinking and ask “what can we do with this principle that might be far more prosaic but a whole lot more useful”), but strength of numbers still lies with the *thousands* of cases where some more or less well-qualified person spent decades lobbying the defense establishment to fund his or her unconventional, they-all-laugh-at-me idea — and succeeded only in proving the conventional wisdom right — sometimes after significant taxpayer expense.
Every idea deserves its hearing, but it’s silly to trot out history’s greatest outliers every time some outlandish scheme fails to get funded.