[IMPORTANT] Trolling and insulting users / Forum rules

  • For Thomas,


    In my opinion, 25 years are not a long time for science. As an example, you could see the case of Ignace Sommelweis, a surgeon who discovered in 1845 that desinfecting the hands before doing a childbirth largely reduce the death of mothers (from 27 % to 0,23%). Even if this man saved so many lifes, nobody trusts him and he died 20 years later without recognition of his discoveries including desinfection and germs transportation.
    I found this example particularly interesting because even if you save with evidence so many lifes, acceptation process can last for a very long period.
    Einstein said also, people have to hit the reality before they accept.

  • Quote

    In my opinion, 25 years are not a long time for science. As an example, you could see the case of Ignace Sommelweis, a surgeon who discovered in 1845 that desinfecting the hands before doing a childbirth largely reduce the death of mothers (from 27 % to 0,23%). Even if this man saved so many lifes, nobody trusts him and he died 20 years later without recognition of his discoveries including desinfection and germs transportation.
    I found this example particularly interesting because even if you save with evidence so many lifes, acceptation process can last for a very long period.
    Einstein said also, people have to hit the reality before they accept.


    Many would argue that medicine at that time was not science, and did not have the tools we now expect that allow good ideas to be evaluated and spread.


    In fact, some would argue that still medicine is not science, because the underlying mechanisms are too diverse and underdetermined to be well understood. Genetic mapping and modern developments in epigenetics are changing that but you can see why it was so difficult to apply scientific method in that area - even if it had been properly developed in 1845 which I think it was not.

  • Yes Thomas, I had not considered things with your vision. When I was doing experiments in fluid mechanics, sometimes, I obtained results I was not able to explain. Then, I tryed to ensure that these experimental results were as sure as possible. When they were sure, my job was trying to explain using existing physics or by creating new physics. I found the work of Sommelweis comparable.
    Kind regards

  • Thomas


    Many would argue that medicine at that time was not science, and did not have the tools we now expect that allow good ideas to be evaluated and spread.


    I suspect history will look back at our thinking and make similar judgements. In fact if you allow for the progress of 'discovery' this is inevitable. The only question is how do we accommodate the future without professing dogma? it is already evident that 'troll like' criticism has lead to the premature death of some.

  • Medicine at the time of semmelweis, but also Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen and also at the time of pasteur was led by a theory that was judged as working well, except some anomalies that were rejected.


    The rewriting of Semmelweis history is that it was an aristocratic problem to ask doctors to wash their hands. From evidence it was not, but the real problem was the challenge of the theory that was supporting all te medicine of that time, spontaneous generation.
    Only when Pasteur mad experimentally a very clear experiment, that instead of saving the life of peopl, was showing that spontaneous generation was wrong, was he welcomed as a hero.


    As I say often, evidence facing dogma, can only convince experts, when the evidence are convincing for a kid of 5 years old.


    Calorimetry, especially for physicist who since the 50s are clearly relatively incompetent and thus (yes thus - because when big ego are incompetent they despise) don't trust it, is not able to convince dishonest brain and kids of 5.
    Heat after death were such evidence, but since it is hard to control it was not accounted, with talent.


    All that capacity to ignore reality for high competence people, is what I call "negative intelligence".


    If you analyse groupthink mechanism, you see that the mechanism is supported by a selfish interest and thus can motivate best people to use all their competence to ignore reality. There is no absurdity in intelligent people smartly manipulating audience and even their own belief to avoid reality, because avoiding reality, avoid to pay a high cost in term of perceived wealth (mostly ego, citation index and budget for academic).


    At the time of Oliver Gordon de Aberdeen, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Pasteur, the cost for academic was the ruin of their theories, their recognition.
    Only when a kid of 5 , a politician, could clearly laugh at the face of a doctor who believe in spontaneous generation, could such academic rationally revert their position.


  • Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background


    Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille mentions Semmelweis as the hero of false anchoring in science.


    Because of false anchoring, this video put forth a theory that the cosmic background is nonsense.

  • Trolling and insulting users.


    So what does this forum think of them?


    1. Should we do nothing?
    2. Should they be tolerated and ignored?
    3. Should they be advised and requested to make respectful contributions by the administrators?
    3. Should they be banned?
    4. If they should be banned, should this be incremental based on seriousness and repeated transgressions?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • So my view:


    Insults demean the insulter but censoring them is more an evil than a good, because it can be difficult to define what is an insult, and what is fair comment.


    Repeated flagrant insults or offensive language etc should result in banning, that gets rid of the "loathsome" end of the trolls that no site wants.


    Tyy I agree was repetitive and did not contribute any argument - no loss though I feel is is being banned (if this is the case) for his views not his lack of content.


    Banning should be clearly stated and publicly declared - this hidden banning of MY gives the wrong impression. I've argued elsewhere she should not be banned, but regardless of that the banning should be publicly declared both to avoid others thinking a lack of reply is intentional (fairness) and in order to make site rules more explicit and prevent future transgressions.


    Banning is a blunt tool, and this site will lose credibility to the extent that it bans people who have the "wrong" views.

  • I would like to see banning be done in stages: first banishment, say a week, publicly announced with reasons. Second maybe a month again announced, and with cause.
    After that a final banishment, announced and with cause.


    Thomas, this site is about LENR (etc.) It is NOT about frauds. MY should create such a site.


    If there was a club about making wine, and a temperance zealot constantly interrupted to tell how bad spirits were for health and society would they have to be wrong to be unwelcome?
    If someone critiqued a method of making wine that didn't work, I'll bet that would be OK. Or even argued that a particular member made crappy wine.




  • Thanks for feedback @Thomas Clarke ! We will discuss this and come back with an answer. I think the ban MY was an automatic action in the forum software (after a number of warnings).

  • Quote

    Thomas, this site is about LENR (etc.) It is NOT about frauds. MY should create such a site.


    I'm sure you realise I cannot let the logical lapse here pass.


    It is possible that LENR companies (one or more) are fraudulent - they operate in a broad area (free energy) known for its high number of frauds. So unless the site restricts comments to academic stuff (fine by me) it must include possible frauds.

  • I'm sure you realise I cannot let the logical lapse here pass.


    It is possible that LENR companies (one or more) are fraudulent - they operate in a broad area (free energy) known for its high number of frauds. So unless the site restricts comments to academic stuff (fine by me) it must include possible frauds.


    Hedge funds are prone to ponzi schemes. These frauds destroy far more people that has LENR frauds. Just consider how much damage to people that Bernard Madoff caused. By your logic, fraud detection is the goal of this site rather than the advancement of LENR. Could it be that the strategy of the LENR enemy is destroy through massive distraction and disinformtion?

  • Quote

    Hedge funds are prone to ponzi schemes. These frauds destroy far more people that has LENR frauds. Just consider how much damage to people that Bernard Madoff caused. By your logic, fraud detection is the goal of this site rather than the advancement of LENR. Could it be that the strategy of the LENR enemy is destroy through massive distraction and disinformtion?


    If you will read above you will see that is not my logic, and it is false for you to say this. Perhaps you did not read the context carefully?


    Gomp was arguing that LENR and fraud were mutually exclusive topics. I pointed out this was not the case.


    I'm not saying the "goal" of a site such as this should be fraud detection, merely that the possibility of fraud exists and to ignore it is unwise.

  • The Gomp - I agree, but that does not affect my logic. I was not saying that MY had a wide range of interests. Are you saying that every contributor here has to have the same range of interests taht the site has as a whole?


    This site can have a broad range of interests but still be interested in MY's special focus on frauds. She has, for example, helped to expose Sniffex and thereby saved lives for real. Her views on some LENR companies tend to be extreme but they are (as many others here will agree) accompanied by often thought-provoking facts.