Hmm, just been on ecat world and was greeted with what looked like a fake microsoft spyware alert. Needless to say, fake or not I killed the firefox process and wont be going back.
I spoke with Frank on Saturday about this 'infection' problem on ECW. He's working on it as a matter of urgency.
I am sorry to hear you feel that way, kev. The moderators do the best they can, sometimes with very unpromising material. Might I ask which discussion site you run? It must be a very interesting one to attract so many followers, I am intrigued.
Indeed, you may take the stand.
So what we are balancing here is one person's thought experiments against many hundreds of data points from real experiments. I agree with Eric that Kirk should maybe think about providing some experimental evidence for his ideas.
It certainly confirms that their idea of 'due diligence' needs an overhaul.
Mary brings up a lot. Mostly the same stuff.
The idea of a friendless Rossi feeling obliged to extend his undoubted JoNP puppetry into this place might well amuse you, but it would be a serious mistake. Even if you don't like hin, he is a man of immense charm (when he likes) who has many friends who would take up the keyboard on his behalf - even unprompted..
By voluntary I meant 'acts performed without external inducement,' Such inducements might include threats, money or promises of future benefits.
The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk is pretty much Huw Price's baby. One of his interests just happens to be LENR, and why it is rejected by mainstream science (and Kirk Shanahan ). Disruption Theory and it's links to successful innovations of all kinds is also a big interest of mine.
The pdf below are slides from the presentations I made on this topic at Asti and before that Trinity College (Cambridge) - I like to think that this is perhaps the first full risk/benifit analysis of the impact of LENR on the problems the world is currently approaching 'full speed ahead'.
Professor Huw Price, populariser of the term 'reputation trap' is speaking at this Dublin conference. I will attend (probably) myself.
Disagreement in Science and Beyond
July 3 and 4, 2017
UCD Sutherland School of Law, Room L143
University College Dublin
Monday July 3
9.30-10.20 Paul Boghossian (New York University)
“Normative relativism and disagreement”
10.20-11.10 Adam Carter (University of Glasgow)
11.10-11.30 Coffee Break
11.30-12.20 Nick Hughes (UCD School of Philosophy, IRC Postdoctoral Fellow)
“A Dilemmic Approach to the Epistemology of Disagreement”
12.20-1.10 Huw Price (University of Cambridge and CSER)
“My Dinner with Andrea – Cold Fusion, Sane Science, and the Reputation Trap”
1.10- 2.30 Lunch
2.30-3.20 Helen De Cruz (Oxford Brookes University)
“Expert disagreement in Science and Religion”
3.20-4.10 Geert Keil (Humboldt-Universität Berlin)
“When experts disagree: A case study from academic philosophy”
4.10-4.30 Coffee Break
4.30-5.20 Maria Baghramian (UCD School of Philosophy) and
Annalisa Coliva (University of California, Irvine).
“Disagreement and Relativism”
Tuesday July 4
9.30-10.20 Adrian Currie (University of Cambridge and CSER)
“Disagreement and Productivity”
10.20-11.10 Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh)
"Points of view: scientific evidence and perspectival knowledge"
11.10-11.30 Coffee Break
11.30 -12.20 Kirsten Walsh (University of Nottingham)
“How Many Colours?”
12.20-1.10 Mikio Akagi (Texas Christian University and WEXD)
"You Say Potato; I Say Parameterization: Modelling Conceptual Disagreement by Tracking Background Commitments"
2.30-3.20 Finnur Dellsén ((University College Dublin and WEXD)
"The Epistemic Value of Expert Autonomy
3.20-3.40 Coffee Break
3.40-4.30 Anjan Chakravartty (University of Notre Dame)
“Scientific Evidence and the Uniqueness Thesis”
4.30 Round Table Discussion
6.00 Close of the workshop
it is hard to distinguish between sincere biased/convinced supporters and paid professional.
My bet is that the worst tactics are amateur.
As Milgram experiment have shown, even money cannot buy the worst behaviors, but you can do it for free.
I agree Alain, I wasn't even thinking about penny-a-post astroturfing, I was thinking of the voluntary kind.
I have no doubt both sides are aware of this probability. Look out for some heavy-duty astroturfing from both camps.
This was ISCMNS - not exactly the same thing. I agree with you about the grey heads at ICCF- but it does appear to be changing. I#m not sure about PG myself. Axil is probably the man to ask.
Rossi's magical heater, far as we know, has never been seen, photographed, preserved, tested or properly documented. Yet you, Alan, believe it was real. Why am I not surprised at that?
It has certainly been photographed and documented. I have the pictures somewhere.
There is growing awareness amongst some of those in the LENR field that the years since '89 spent hanging on the coat-tails of academia and striving for respectability via peer-reviewed publication have ended in failure when measured by conventional standards. For this realisation we can thank Rossi, who whatever you think of him has raised the profile of LENR and brought in new younger workers and also new funders ( new = nothing to do with IH). For this reason alone, I think (and expect/hope) we might see some interesting developments before 2020.
Ir was entirely true. But since the reactor was small, and the factory large, it didn't heat it very much.
Whatever you might think of Mitchell Swartz or Mike McKubre, nothing much gets past them. They could be of immense help to my own research, and as we don't care about the money side of things, that might in turn lead to helping the world. Quite enough reward for me.
Yes indeed. No politics, no religion, and no pornography.
Actually I do think "they" want their information, gossip, rumor or whatever out there. Not with their name linked to it obviously, but I do believe they realize the field has somehow retarded it's growth with this pervasive secrecy, and hope their barroom accounts somehow make it out as an "end around".
Or if you do not buy that; LENR seems stuck in neutral, little advanced since FPs, and maybe the way to get it moving again is some good old fashioned gossip.
Shane D. I quite agree with your first thought. LFH - despite an abiding personal interest in Ni/H which represents what I think of as 'non-elitist' LENR is, as much as possible, non-aligned and neutral. We encourage the sharing of information without revealing our sources. the Assange-free 'Wikileaks' of the field. This requires patience, and finely-judged discretion, this last being the most difficult thing. As a famous actress once said to me 'I have been accused of many things, but nobody ever accused me of being discreet'. Fortunately there is something about my personality which encourages people to tell me their innermost secrets, perhaps it is because they know I will pass them on?
There was a lot of gossip, but very little about Rossi. Also had a good chat with Dewey Weaver after I (somewhat) cornered him in the bar. I told him there was no need to apologise for his more intemperate posts, because I was quite sure he never wrote them himself. But we got on ok. Fences were mended in a professional manner. For me the high-point was being invited to serve on the ISCMNS committee (envelope licker) and making some very good contacts- who will be useful in our research programme -very useful. There is a possibility of some joint venture work. As far as gossip goes...it would not be fair to pass on what people say when they are a little bit drunk, would it now?
Objectivity score 3 and falling.....