After re reading this blog post,
Peter Gluck relay a copy of that post
Re reading it it seems to analyse the critics against E-cat, and notice how they are mostly absurds and based on nothing real or logic.
Here is the google translation
But Peter Gluck propose a better translation Himself at then end of his latest post
NOTE: This is a somewhat shortened translation of this writing and very free, I have tried to translate ideas more than words. And I have added my own answers were the author has not responded. I like very much the mode of thinking of this young Russian blogger and I hope he will excuse me for that inexact work.
Talgaton Blog, Russia
Why I do LENR- flux of conscience
What’s more interesting for this theme- the critics of LENR:
What is the most special about it? It is NOT scientific.
· LENR – only impostors work for/with it
· LENR – here is No theory
· LENR – it is impossible to replicate
· LENR – it does not appear in peer reviewed journalsх.
Four classic proofs repeated by diverse opponents. If you read about LENR in popular publications you surely will meet these. However these critics are not more than self-fulfilling prophecies.
If a worldwide “scientific consensus” would have been established that the cold fusionist are scammers, they have no theory at all, their experiment are not repatable, they have no per reviewed publications- then:
- who will make the experiments?
- who will write reviews?
- In which journals will appear papers about this subject?
People who do this questionable experiments must have their reasons, including that they want money- they are higher than the “consensus”
[ the paper speaks then about ITER that is awfully expensive and even if it will be a success- it will be extremely difficult to use]
Talgaton publish another post where he tell the story , the tragedy, of Semmelweiss, to finally compare with LENR
I studied this tragedy, from Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen to Pasteur, through the ironic death of Semmelweis from Puerperal fever in asylum.
The incredible quality of his evidence, for the period, and the general denial of evidence.
The myth today, told in school, is that it was because of aristocratic doctors, lazy to wash their hands, that this evidence was ignored. It is following the class-struggle theory, to avoid the simple theory-driven academic denial theory.
I know, seeing the success of Pasteur that it is only because there was no accepted theory for Semmelweis observations. That the consensus at that period was spontaneous generation of disease from disbalanced body fluids. Only when an evidence that could be understood by a kid of 5 (Pasteur was good salesman at that) was shown to academic, did they reconnect their brain.
Semmelweis, once you rewrite the history as it is, getting above the usual historical mythology, is really a good lab rat for scientific denial.
Contrary to many I don't see Galileo as such an example. it was a political war, and catholic church was much more tolerant with those theories, as long as you don't relativize humanity as Copernicus, Galileo and others were doing, with a political agenda. It is really a shame that Catholic church was more tolerant than most academic organizations today, when they are challenged.
The worst exemplary tragedy of scientific denial by academics, is "Germs". It is theory-driven denial, forced consensus, inverted Popperian logic. Exactly what we observe with LENR.