Either-Or Fallacy-- Another Example of Bad Thinking

If Western Civilization collapses, what will be on its tombstone?  In a way, that is a whimsical thought.  There will be no tombstone if the collapse occurs.  But if there were a tombstone, it will have to have something about what contributed to the death.  In my opinion, it may well be death by faulty thinking.  One manner of faulty thinking is the reliance upon a fallacy of one kind or another.  One that I noted in reading Andrea Rossi's blog is that there seems to be that type of fallacy with regards to nuclear power.  According to one comment, there needs to be an end to fission power, and have it replaced by a cold fusion device- such as the e-cat.

I am all for the success of the e-cat. But not to the exclusion of all others. There is no either or fallacy here. Both modes of producing power can be acceptable. It is the manner of how fission power is produced today that is a cause of problems- not fission power itself.  On the other hand, fission and fusion power is sought as a replacement for fossil fuels.  But these have not be perfected yet and we still need the energy.

We are being set up for failure because of this fallacy that one must prevail over the other.  Yet all forms of energy are needed now.  A high level of civilization requires it.  In addition to this, a perfect means of generating energy may not be found, nor found practical.  You must demonstrate capability before shutting down a proven source of energy.  Therefore, the rush in forcing defeat upon an established means of energy, such as fossil and nuclear is to put the cart before the horse.  In so doing, it will subject the West to a risk of economic collapse as insufficient means of energy production will doom its economic prospects.

What I have tried to show on this blog is that solutions exist.  There's one that has had a proof of concept verified.  Knowledge gained which was nearly lost for all time, yet recently re-discovered.  That is the molten salt reactor research done at Oak Ridge nearly a half century ago.  In the meantime, cold fusion research has been relegated to the backwaters of scientific research.  These two potential game changing technologies were kept down by the same kind of bad thinking- they had to give way to another more favored approach.  For the LFTR, it was set aside in favor of the Fast Breeder Reactor.  Unfortunately, the Fast Breeder never seemed to work out.  For cold fusion, it lost out to hot fusion projects.  We are still waiting for the hot fusion concepts to work.  In the meantime, cold fusion may be feasible.  But if it isn't taken seriously, this knowledge may never be employed just as the LFTR technology has yet to be employed.

Why must this be?  Why can't the fallacy be replaced with better thinking?  Why depend upon a fallacy?  The molten salt reactor technology could have been commercialized by now.  Cold fusion technology could have been just as well.  It is not the cost of the research that prevents it.  It is the quality of the thinking that eliminated these possibilities before they had the chance to demonstrate their worthiness.  There is room for all forms of energy production.  In the end, we may never know which one may be the best, so we should keep our options open.