Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Beside scientific bullying against LENR

  1. #41
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    474
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 19 Posts
    Funny you should say that, a post on the Blacklight power section of the forum

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread...full=1#post802

    I'm not sure whether Blacklight's technology is LENR or even real, but it's good that we are all thinking together.
    Last edited by drew; 07-06-2013 at 18:03.
    «Predictions are difficult. Especially about the future.»

    - Yogi Berra, Baseball player

  2. #42
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 78 Times in 69 Posts
    About semmelweis (thanks to Roger Bird on 22passi), Michael Crichton (in a big article that I did not read fully) make this quick summary of the history of puerperal fever recognition, of others similar story and more generaly about scientific consensus (as oxymoron) :
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

    He first talk of Consensus in science as an oxymoron:

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
    He summarize the story of puerperal fever recognition, but remind us it started much before Semmelweis.
    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
    he cite similar stories
    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
    about wegener he summarize it
    Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    "I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank." (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
    See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co

  3. #43
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 78 Times in 69 Posts
    new example of how people react to surprising claims :
    This researcher, Dan Everett, claims that some tribe (Pirahã people who live in four villages beside the Maici River- a tributary of the Amazon) have a language which can be whistled, beside being sing and spoken, however it is missing tense and numbers.
    http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/...splay/?id=8083

    I agree this seems shocking, but as usual some reaction of the community have been to insult him, and he received insult letters...


    It seems he chalenge Chomsky...

    http://bryanappleyard.com/overthrowing-chomsky/

    My source iabout the usual insults agains dissenters is from Arte TV document
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPqVA...=youtube_gdata

    In the documentary they show how the Brasilian university organized a boycott, refusing even to critic and atten at his conference.
    They manipulated the FUNAI, which give permit to go there, so they refuse Everett the permit.

    One more reason to vomit again..

    The good point like with Shechtman and his quasi-crystals, LENR, is that there is also supporters who disagree with the consensus.

    as usual finding evidence of the bullying is hard...

    seems to be a regular process. bullying dissenters, and hiding it.
    Last edited by AlainCo; 06-10-2013 at 20:40.
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    "I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank." (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
    See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co

  4. #44
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 78 Times in 69 Posts
    on e-cat workd an article was cited
    http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...creativity.htm
    A human bias against creativity is hindering science, research claims
    Dec. 12, 2011
    Special to World Science
    Most us us profess to love creativity. But we recoil when it stares us in the face, according to a new study that seems to seems lodge a quiet indictment against the whole human race.

    Jennifer S. Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues, who conducted the work, say their study both demonstrates and helps explain the phenomenon. The problem that perhaps most interferes with our recognition and appreciation for real-life creativity, they claim, is that creativity usually comes with a side dish of uncertainty: Will this new idea actually work? What will people think of me if I accept it?
    ...
    Last edited by AlainCo; 10-10-2013 at 12:51.
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    "I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank." (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
    See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co

  5. #45
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 78 Times in 69 Posts
    Greenween on e-cat world quote some text from Randen Mills article
    http://www.cheniere.org/misc/mills.htm
    I'm reminded of the same kind of pontificators who blasted the very notion of an amorphous semiconductor. They thundered that every fool knew that a semiconductor had to be crystalline. They crucified Ovshinsky, calling him every kind of charlatan and scoundrel. Then one day they suddenly woke up to find that Ovshinsky had put his amorphous semiconductor into Xerox copy machines, under contract, and they were working just fine, thank you! Not too long after that, students began doing Ph.D. theses in amorphous semiconductors. So how many of the ardent critics then apologized to Ovshinsky? Not a one.


    You can tell a true scientist from a dogmatist easily. When the scientist makes an error, he admits it straightforwardly and corrects it. When the dogmatist makes an error, you never hear a peep from him, only more of the same, just louder.
    Understand, everyone needs a friendly skeptic, to keep him honest and point out his errors. Such a scientist friend is one of the most valuable friends one can have. But one sometimes cannot help feeling harshly toward "scientists" of strongly bigoted ilk. In the long run they delay, harangue, and suppress far more innovative science than they allow down the pike. As a result, science often requires 40 to 100 years to do what can be done in four years in the proper environment, with funding and the proper team. The literature is full of vivid examples, as every historian of science knows well. Even Max Planck, at the time the most prestigious scientist in the world, pointed out wryly that one finally gets a new science not by sweet reason, but by the old diehards who so bitterly oppose it finally dying off and getting out of the way.
    Reading Wikipravda:
    once again you find that he is a serial innovator, he started to work as machinist, innovation as a practitioner.

    of course no reference to the insult against ovshinsky.
    that journalist work tell more of the proglem:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/...-yankee-genius
    ...
    By the end of his life, Ovshinsky had established a new field of science: the study of “amorphous” materials, messy solids that have no regular atomic structure. He published around 300 academic papers on the subject. His inventions gained more than 400 patents. All this from a man who taught himself physics using books borrowed from the public library in his home town of Akron, Ohio.
    ...
    finally there is a vindication hall for maverick scientists :
    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j24
    Stanford R. Ovshinsky (amorphous semiconductor devices)
    Physicists "knew" that chips and transistors could only be made from expensive slices of ultra-pure single-crystal semiconductor. Ovshinsky's breakthrough invention of glasslike semiconductors was attacked by physicists and then ignored for more than a decade. (When evidence contradicts consensus belief, inspecting that evidence somehow becomes a waste of time.) Ovshinsky was bankrupt and near destitute when finally the Japanese took interest and funded his work. The result: the new science of amorphous semiconductor physics, as well as inexpensive thin-film semiconductor technology (in particular the amorphous solar cell, photocopier components, and writeable CDROMS sold by Sharp Inc.) made millions for Japan rather than for the US.
    Ovshinsky's strange devices, Semiconductors made from glass Pop. Science 4/1978
    Last edited by AlainCo; 10-11-2013 at 08:03.
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    "I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank." (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
    See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co

  6. #46
    Tech-watcher/Admin AlainCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
    Posts
    2,912
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 78 Times in 69 Posts
    Looking for Ovshinsky, I found two similar Vindication Hall of fame, Hall of shame
    On is
    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
    RIDICULED DISCOVERERS,
    VINDICATED MAVERICKS
    2002 William Beaty

    THE LIST: scroll down
    Weird science versus revolutionary science

    While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.
    In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

    Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Today's science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide these huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the embarrassing acts of intellectual suppression which were directed at the following researchers by their colleagues. And... after wide reading, I've never encountered any similar list.[1] This is very telling.



    "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift
    THE LIST: scroll down
    To add: B Belousov, Carl Woese, Gilbert Ling, John C. Lilly


    "Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein




    "Men show their character in nothing more clearly than by what they think laughable." -J. W. Goethe

    there ia also this one
    http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/GeniusHall.html
    which is a copy.

    this article
    http://amasci.com/supress1.html
    talk of LENR among the victims ... it propose some mechanism.
    Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas

    (J. Sacherman 1997)

    Abstract


    American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.
    ...
    Some quotations collected by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navakky in their book The Experts Speak (1984) illustrated further the hostile or trivializing attitude towards different ideas, scientific inquiries, and revolutionary discoveries.
    "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)
    "Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)

    "I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of evolution, 1857 (p.9)

    "If the whole of the English language could be condensed into one word, it would not suffice to express the utter contempt those invite who are so deluded as to be disciples of such an imposture as Darwinism." -Francis Orpen Morris, British ornithologist 1877 (p.10)

    "Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)

    "To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)

    "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers Studios, 1927 (p.72)

    "The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)

    "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)

    "Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)

    "But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)

    "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)
    Several of the above examples show new ideas that were grievously misjudged by scientific peers and those in authority.
    ...
    Their section old cold fusion give an explanation of the reasons:
    Taboo or Unpopular Science

    The Golem (Collins 1993), Fire from Ice (Mallove 1991), The Coming Energy Revolution (Manning 1996) and Alternative Science (Milton 1996) all had chapters which described the genesis of cold fusion and gave important evidence for it's validity. These books told of the findings of two chemists, Professor Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University and his former student, Professor Stanley Pons of the University of Utah. Fleischmann and Pons held a 1989 press conference at which they announced the discovery of cold fusion. Milton (1996) defined cold fusion as "the production of usable amounts of excess energy by a nuclear process occurring in a water at room temperature"(p. 25).
    By making the announcement about their success at a press conference, Manning(1996) and Milton(1996), and Collins (1993) all stated that these two distinguished scientists were breaking with the tradition of first submitting an article to peer review for publication. Manning (1996) contended that it was mainly this departure from the expected way of introducing the phenomenon, not the failing of the results, which led to the trivializing and derogating of cold fusion, and of Fleischmann and Pons as well, by the majority of mainstream scientists.

    Manning (1996) suggested that a secondary cause for disapproval was the fact that science did not have a framework yet for how these cold fusion experiments produced the energy. This lack of a previously existing framework seems to cause most mainstream scientists to invalidate anomalous data through experimental regress and the confirmation biases

    Evidently Pons and Fleischmann intended to keep the means of producing cold fusion to themselves in hopes of becoming wealthy, so they were not forthcoming about the details of the methodology used. Although they were able to repeatedly get the same verifiable results, other scientists of the time were not able to independently duplicate what Pons and Fleischmann had done (Manning, 1996).

    A third cause for disapproval, explained Manning (1996), is that the massively funded hot fusion research organizations had also been trying over decades to get some of the same findings as those from the cold fusion experiments and may have had professional jealousy (Manning 1996).

    This writer believes that the suppression of cold fusion could have been due to some of the same cognitive distortions which led to the suppression of other maverick science ideas and inventions throughout history. These cognitions include the in-group out-group, confirmation, and that expectancy biases, as well as cognitive dissonance reactions to anomalies.

    Manning (1996) wrote of how in America, Fleischmann and Pon's reputations as cold fusion researchers were tarnished. Cold fusion articles were suddenly banished from science journals and U.S. patents for cold fusion were dismissed.

    Manning (1997) continued that only Japan was still putting major funding into cold fusion research. As a heavily populated island with few natural energy resources, Japan had everything to gain from clean safe energy production. Also, because many Easterners have a "spiritual belief in an all pervading energy which comes in many forms,"(p. 102) the idea of fusion reactions taking place without extreme high temperatures was not quite such a dissonant idea as it had been for Westerners.

    Other methods to derive usable energy that are considered to be in opposition to the beliefs of mainstream science were discussed by Manning (1996). These included solid state energy devices, vibrational devices developed by nineteenth century musician and inventor John Ernst Worrell Keeley, vortex and magnetic energy mechanisms, new technologies for using waste and hydropower, and the use of hydrogen for power.
    Last edited by AlainCo; 10-11-2013 at 18:41.
    “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.” (Marshall McLuhan)
    "Heureusement que Galilée n’a pas suivi le consensus de son époque, car la terre n’aurait pas tourné !" (Claude Allégre)
    "I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank." (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)
    See my raw tech-watch on http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur & twitter @alain_co

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •