Hey frankwtu, if there is no bad publicity, can you explain why Franc Ackland rigidly censors his dreadfully dull web site to eliminate most comments unfavorable to Rossi and ALL comments suggesting that Rossi is a fraud? Interestingly, Woodford fund has a forum and when two of their shareholders documented their distaste for LENR in general and Rossi in particular, they at first allowed a brief discussion (two or three responses from each side) and then rigidly censored any further debate. If I were a Woodford shareholder, I'd be mightily pissed off!
Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)
-
-
Hey frankwtu, if there is no bad publicity, can you explain why Franc Ackland rigidly censors his dreadfully dull web site to eliminate most comments unfavorable to Rossi and ALL comments suggesting that Rossi is a fraud? Interestingly, Woodford fund has a forum and when two of their shareholders documented their distaste for LENR in general and Rossi in particular, they at first allowed a brief discussion (two or three responses from each side) and then rigidly censored any further debate. If I were a Woodford shareholder, I'd be mightily pissed off!
This behavior is not unusual in social interactions. For example, a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars would not tolerate terroristic statements coming from any of its visitors. We keep you and your kind here endlessly flapping your lip so you can harmlessly waste your breath and insults on deaf ears.
-
You're right Axil. Most of the know-nothings on e-dummyworld.com would hate to have to defend their peculiar beliefs and arguments, especially when it pertains to Rossi not to mention the free energy weirdoes and alien rectal probe believers like George Hants.
-
Mary
If you approach this from a Bayesian interpretation of probability, as your friend Thomas would do, assessing this as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses, i.e., the propositions whose truth or falsity is uncertain, then you may have a point. But then to assess the outcome of a proposition, which of course we cannot do here since this is essentially only 'half time', it can only be an opinion concerning one of many dynamics in the field of LENR, the collective outcome for which, according to Huw Price, includes a corruption of the discipline of discovery as a dynamic making 'reasoning with hypotheses' difficult due to the alienation of 'reasonable people'. There may of course be benefits to this leading to an eventual position where 'extraordinary claims actually achieve extraordinary evidence', and for that 'all publicity' plays a part; we shall see.
-
Frank, I tried to understand that, I really did, but I can't come close. Can you maybe restate with smaller sentences and more explanation.
-
Axil,
The reason skeptics are tolerated on this silly forum, is that you and the cowardly admins, Alain, David, Barty et al, can't wait to see us proven wrong and publicly humiliated.
Of course, that only happens in your dreamworld.
-
Mary
Have a word with Thomas, I'm sue he will be willing to help, although I don't think he has quite got the grasp of Bayesian interpretation of probability either.
Perhaps I can point to an example from Tyy that I think Huw Price might be thinking of as the antitheses of reasoning with hypotheses which gives rise to the 'reputation trap' he speaks of :
The reason skeptics are tolerated on this silly forum, is that you and the cowardly admins, Alain, David, Barty et al, can't wait to see us proven wrong and publicly humiliated.
I'm sure you will understand that language without a Google translation, its an absolutely appalling attempt to discredit this site and to attack individuals in a disrespectful way.
-
Quote
I don't think he has quite got the grasp of Bayesian interpretation of probability either
Bayesian probability is simply the only mathematically consistent way to do it - given you want probabilities to be in range 0 - 1.
Since it works as an inductive equivalent of deduction the whole frequentist framework is superfluous.
The key thing about prior probabilities is that:
(1) in many real cases they go away, so no problem.
(2) in all simple cases they can be deduced from symmetry arguments
(3) in complex cases they can be guesses (expert priors) and although that is less satisfactory the possible errors (in posterior probability) from such expert guessing can be determined. -
Quote
according to Huw Price
The evidence is scientific so those who evaluate it as Price does from a philosophical or sociological standpoint are doomed.
-
The evidence is scientific so those who evaluate it as Price does from a philosophical or sociological standpoint are doomed.
Mary, my apologies for pointing you towards Thomas. This is a thread proposing sociological and philosophical hypotheses. Unfortunately he has again missed the point again particularly in the application of Bayesian interpretation of probability in respect of Huw Price's hypotheses which requires 'reasoning' to evaluate the presented hypotheses which he has completely ignored, except to say those who engage in such hypotheses are 'doomed', we shall see.Last paragraph in Price’s paper:
“It would be easy to overstate the analogy between mainstream institutions and the Inquisition, but it isn’t entirely empty. If we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that existing scientific institutions are not working as well as they might, we do something to reinforce it. If the reputation trap makes it impossible to question the role of the reputation trap, then the Cardinals are winning”.
-
If I understand the plain talk version, Price's is another of the paranoid rants about how the reason for the lack of success of LENR and of crooks like Rossi is simply that the establishment won't allow it. I don't know and don't much care about the " Bayesian interpretation of probability in respect of Huw Price's hypotheses." Why LENR isn't accepted is OBVIOUS and SIMPLE. It has never met the criteria for a novel, demonstrated phenomenon by usual scientific methods. In particular, for Rossi's case:
- the claimed effect decreases with time rather than increases... markedly and strikingly... both as to absolute power level *and* as to figure of merit (ratio of power out to power in, so called COP)
- instead of improving and perfecting the experimental method as Rossi has been endlessly advised, he devises new and ever more complex, equally flawed demonstrations
- he steadfastly refuses any truly independent testing by capable institutions using fool proof methodology
These are the hallmarks of pseudoscientific bogus claims. You do not need philosophy and sociology concepts to grasp this. It is transparently self-evident. What is curious, and maybe relevant to sociology, is why people still give claimants like Defkalion, BLP, Steorn and Rossi credence after so many years of abject failures have passed. It is also odd that otherwise intelligent people (to wit Brian Josephson and some of those discussing this here) still attend to these people. That, by the way, is my main interest here -- not LENR which I am afraid has not reached a level of accomplishment which would get my attention.
As to how well scientific institutions work with respect to innovation, I have no idea -- it's a pretty large field about which to generalize. I think the truth is that some inventions should be accepted more rapidly than they are but that other concepts and ideas which are partly or entirely bogus tend to offset this by bogging science and funding down with useless pursuits.
-
Frank:
My point wrt Huy's comment was similar to Mary's, and perhaps you missed it.
There is no possibility that Huy can accurately assess the evidence, or lack of it. In fact, he is deliberately not trying to assess experimental evidence,but saying that according to sociological theory way out ideas may be dismissed by the scientific establishment.
If we did not have the experimental evidence available to consider, I might give that some weight, even though ignoring the experimental evidence Huy does, is a pretty bad way to make this judgement. And all the incentives, practically, are for individual scientists to chase way out ideas that might be true.
We do have it, and its weakness is transparent - look at the way that groups following up "promissing" evidence only get something that looks better by using weaker calorimetry. You will see that generally people give up on getting better evidence by tightening up instrumentation and change the experiment completely.
-
I fail to see a point in professor Price's article. While I agree, that you should not dismiss anything on the basis what happened 25 years ago, it is obvious that his thinking is wishful at best, delusional at worst.
I am sure fans of Kuhnian philosophy love this line of thinking, but nature does not care about philosophy, it cannot be fooled.
If lenr were real, no reputation trap would be able to prevent people from researching it. Hey, even the most likely fact that it isn't real does not prevent many from doing exactly that!
They are free to try, no question of that.
But in last 25 years, still no results. Cold fusioneers should stop whining and change that, if they want to be credible.
-
Hey frankwtu, if there is no bad publicity, can you explain why Franc Ackland rigidly censors his dreadfully dull web site to eliminate most comments unfavorable to Rossi and ALL comments suggesting that Rossi is a fraud? Interestingly, Woodford fund…
Frank is trying to benefit from the dummyword he created. I can understand that, thought I do not accept it.
You're right Axil. Most of the know-nothings on e-dummyworld.com would hate to have to defend their peculiar beliefs and arguments, especially when it pertains to Rossi not to mention the free energy weirdoes and alien rectal probe believers like George…
"Peculiar beliefs" is very mildly put. But yes, the sensorship is necessary, because their beliefs cannot be defended. Banning the critique as "trolling" is the only option.
-
Price's is another of the paranoid rants
My point wrt Huy's comment was similar to Mary's
Frank is trying to benefit from the dummyword he created.
You are absolutely right, there's no such thing as Trolls!
-
frank:
I'm not a troll. And I get as indignant as tyy and mary about ecat world. So, while I would not use the language they do - it is not seemly and does not contribute - i will argue here very strongly that what Frank Acland does on his side is absolutely wrong and quite distinct from banning trolls.
How do I know? Well, I got permanently banned with no explanation when I was being polite but making logical connections between the Lugano lack of results and other matters. That was after i had invigorated discussion there with a fair amount of polite and substantial and appreciated comment. As a result, although a few on ECW know the Lugano results are bust, there is a conspiracy to ignore any of the logical consequences of that.
Personally I'm quite glad, to comply with the site rules I had to tone down whatever I said, which does not come naturally to me!
-
If you think rational arguments constitute trolling, then there is little point in engaging you with responses, is there?
-
Thomas
fair amount of polite and substantial and appreciated comment.
I agree, this is exactly what we need, more 'fair', 'polite', 'substantial' and 'appreciated comment' laden discourse. What a noble aspiration!
-
Just because someone does not agree with you only makes them a troll in your opinion.
Reminds me of a phrase which I heard a very long time ago and it is still amusingly correct to this day:
"There is no accounting for other people's poor taste"
best regards,
:nuke: Dog
-
Dog
"There is no accounting for other people's poor taste"
and
You are absolutely right, there's no such thing as Trolls!
