Did my last written comment to your post offend you or somehow cause you to feel a micro-aggression?
Really?
:nuke: Dog
Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)
-
-
Dog
Not at all, I'm sorry if you feel my post gave that impression.
My position is that people like Price should not need to ask if mainstream scientists experience threats to their credibility when engaging with LENR whether real or imagined. But they apparently do and this is due in my opinion to the quality of communication having the effect of exclusion whether intended or not. This is not a healthy environment for the science of discovery.
-
It is a tough world out there...
i only worry about sticks and stones because if someone truly has an innovative invention or breakthrough discovery - it will stand on its own merit.
The dream of cheap abundant energy is a worthy and noble pursuit. Whenever some person or organization perpetrates a fraud or disingenuous series of activities which take funding from more promising and verifiable projects - that is saddening to me and I think other folks on this site feel the same way. Now some may be more vehement than others within this forum but I applaud Alain in his judgment for allowing dissent. If some folks think AR is a fraud then they are very much entitled to their opinion. If they just plain lie in the process of stating their opinion then you or anyone else with indisputable facts can, in turn, prove them wrong. As an example, I get a real kick out of the different posters who refer or direct people on this forum to a certain reference from a DIA article regarding the pursuit of LENR which was written in 2009.
I know of no one in DOD technical circles who invests any time investigating if a DIA CYA piece has or had any merit. -
If facts were indisputable there would be no need for discussion. There will always be differences of opinion which need to be accommodated without people being alienated or humiliated in the process.
-
I am going to make a guess that you are a millennial?
-
If facts were indisputable there would be no need for discussion. There will always be differences of opinion which need to be accommodated without people being alienated or humiliated in the process.
The trolls do more than just have a contrary opinion, they actively do all the dirty tricks that they can think of to undercut LENR development.
There was a NRC action generated by a troll against Rossi regarding the presence or use of nuclear material in his lab. There are calls to monied interests to undercut LENR funding. There are efforts to get pro LENR journalists fired. There are efforts to lobby educational institutions to either remove and/or not considerer LENR development efforts.
-
Quote
There was a NRC action generated by a troll against Rossi regarding the presence or use of nuclear material in his lab.
Axil, Axil! You forgot to cite the result! The result was that the inspectors were taken to what [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]'s officers said was Rossi's factory and it was an empty deserted building with no evidence of either lab OR factory-- just like Rossi's old building in Italy. And most interesting, the chief financial officer of [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] told the inspectors that he had never heard of Rossi. I'm not sure if it was the same incident but Darden told somebody official that Rossi's claims couldn't be trusted.
That was the [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] inspection. Earlier, an inspection was requested for Rossi and he was asked about his ecat "reactors." And he told the inspectors he didn't manufacture or test anything in the US, in direct contradiction to what he said in his JONP blog. The whole thing was hilarious. And BTW, if Rossi had really been doing something "nookularr" without proper permits, he should indeed have been busted. Of course, as I have known for a long time, all Rossi does is putter around with electrical heaters combined with junk that doesn't work.
-
Dog
I am going to make a guess that you are a millennial?
Why would you want to do that?
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe believe that each generation has common characteristics that give it a specific character, with four basic generational archetypes, repeating in a cycle. According to their theory, they predicted Millennials will become more like the "civic-minded" G.I. Generation with a strong sense of community both local and global.
-
Thank you for answering my question.
Dog
-
Dog
You are welcome. I would be grateful if you could answer mine.
Best wishes
Frank -
I most certainly thought your question was rhetorical.
Best regards,
Dog
-
Dog
Not a bit, I am genuinely interested in why you think I am a millennial, would it be that you genuinely feel my views project a 'strong sense of community both local and global'? If so I am flattered, thank you for that.
Very best regards
Frank -
To answer your question - just as directly as you answered mine, I was just curious...
best regards,
dog
-
Dog
Thank you for answering my question.
The fact that you appeared to be satisfied with apparent indirect 'rhetorical' information does not surprise me. You appear to share that characteristic with Mary, TYY and Thomas. But this is only the tip of the iceberg isn't it? The LENR community will have to get used to this strategy which is part of a concerted approach, as Price suggested, to discredit the process of discovery and those who participate.
There are weaknesses, as you have demonstrated, when we see beyond the barricades a real human being who recognises qualities which are 'constructive', which I thank you for. In that respect I think we have indeed reached a 'tipping point' in favour of dismantling the 'reputation trap' Huw Price speaks of, alienating those who engineer it, and empowering those who seek to circumnavigate it.
-
Quote
The fact that you appeared to be satisfied with apparent 'rhetorical' information does not surprise me. You appear to share that characteristic with Mary, TYY and Thomas.
Would you care to give a substantive (non-rhetorical) answer to this? It seems unlikely to me...
-
He is possibly referring to the fact that your apparent 'deep study of LENR papers' seems to be entirely cribbed from 'Popeye'?
His sophistry is a form of rhetoric.
-
Thomas
You may wish to amend your question in the light of my amended post above. My apologies for that.
You see that dog appears to be satisfied with my answer to his question which was no answer at all being 'indirect', he still doesn't know if I am millennial or not. There is nothing particularly wrong with 'rhetorical' providing it is in the pursuit of open discovery but he has discovered nothing and he appears to be happy with that. That is my point. Huw Price's 'reputation trap' appears to be engineered to frustrate discovery, this forum appears to me to be littered with examples of that.
Frank
-
Quote
The fact that you appeared to be satisfied with apparent indirect 'rhetorical' information does not surprise me. You appear to share that characteristic with Mary, TYY and Thomas.
I don't think the addition of "indirect" here helps your point, and would still like an example. Perhaps one thing may help. In truth, I'm not easily satisfied, and there's the rub. Those who see evidence for LENR look at papers with superficially extraordinary results and swallow them - or - more subtley - argue that there are so many such papers that something must be real.
I understand that argument, and why it is weak. I've tried to indicate here why that is but it gets rather meta.
QuoteHe is possibly referring to the fact that your apparent 'deep study of LENR papers' seems to be entirely cribbed from 'Popeye'?His sophistry is a form of rhetoric.
Popeye does an excellent job of critiquing the LENR field from an objective standpoint. That is: he does not look at the details of the research, but notes its historical progress and argues that this is consistent with "no real LENR" and inconsistent with "real LENR". His view is that which most reasonable scientists would have: but most reasonable scientists would not bother coming onto internet forums to articulate it.
His "meta-information" analysis is much more substantive than the alternative "meta-information" analysis in which scientists are biassed and unreliable except for the very few who have stayed with LENR - those being unbiassed and reliable.
However Popeye - very properly - does not want to look at individual papers himself. I say properly because it is arrogance, in general, to reckon that anyone unskilled can correctly interpret what such a paper means. To do this you need a lot of highly technical background, detailed reading of the field, and the ability to reflect on that and reach a balanced synthetic judgement. I don't claim to have done all of that - though I've done some, but reckon most of the LENR papers I've seen are weak enough for me to be able to critique, given time.
My interest here is because I enjoy puzzles, and I see many LENR papers as exactly that. I got into this as you know by critiquing the Lugano report, and although that experiment broke all the normal rules for methodology and so could easily be dismissed as irrelevant, it had very detailed data. Following that data through to its logical conclusion with persistence is worthwhile, and for me fun. And that was all done before I had heard of Popeye.
So to say that my arguments here are regurgitating Popeye is silly - we come at this from a different perspective. The meta-arguments that interest me are those close to the experimental evidence. Why do researchers abandon promising results and, instead of making them indisputable with better calorimetry, go measure something different, or the same thing from a completely different system with less good calorimetry?
Popeye would see my interest in this as almost certainly a waste of time because the historical evidence points so clearly in one direction. For me, decoding puzzles is worthwhile without ulterior motive.
Both Popeye and I share a love of long overly-complex paragraphs and a (somewhat pathological) wish not to let incorrect argument lie unrefuted. I think I can control this tendency slightly better than Popeye - but doubt you'd believe that from my behaviour here!
-
P Mp
Popeye does an excellent job of critiquing the LENR field from an objective standpoint. That is: he does not look at the details of the research, but notes its historical progress and argues that this is consistent with "no real LENR" and inconsistent with "real LENR".
Objective!?
:phatgrin: :phatgrin: :phatgrin:And he sure cites a lot of papers that he "has not looked at the details of"...
His "meta-information" analysis is much more substantive than the alternative "meta-information" analysis in which scientists are biassed and unreliable except for the very few who have stayed with LENR - those being unbiassed and reliable.
I know we all can suffer from confirmation bias, so I can only suggest you research some of the points he makes, before deciding how biased and reliable his rhetoric is. Eric Walker begins to scratch at the surface here: How to read LENR experimental resultsSo to say that my arguments here are regurgitating Popeye is silly
That has been true for many years and not recently changed except that the average quality of the LENR scientists has been going down. (Actually I have this from Popeye - so no doubt people here can contradict him name new entrants into the LENR field with impressive scientific background?).
:crazy: You barely even chewed it!Both Popeye and I share a love of long overly-complex paragraphs and a (somewhat pathological) wish not to let incorrect argument lie unrefuted. I think I can control this tendency slightly better than Popeye - but doubt you'd believe that from my behaviour here!
I respect your commentary, and I think you do yourself a huge disservice by conflating yourself with that cartoon character.
-
Thomas
I note you have not 'rubbished' what I have been saying but defend yourself with:
overly-complex paragraphs and a (somewhat pathological) wish not to let incorrect argument lie unrefuted.
So long as the LENR discourse is 'constructive', 'respectful', 'polite' and does not seek to 'be engineered to frustrate discovery' that is fine with me. Much of what you say 'catches my eye' but I soon become 'disinterested' as I do with the comments of others, when the style of argument becomes, in my humble opinion, 'disrespectful'. Once such a line is crossed, and I accept this is 'subjective', the discourse enters a rather 'dark' place occupied by those who also engineer Price's 'reputation trap' with respect to LENR. My view is that 'reasonable' contributors should do as much as they can to distance themselves from the 'dark side' least they get 'tarred with the same brush'.
Best regards
Frank
