- Member since Feb 14th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by frankwtu
-
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Mary
Tangential arguments like yours simply strengthen crooks like Rossi
Wow, would that be based on Bayesian probabilities and if so would that be objective or subjective or both?
You know what they say, there's no such thing as 'bad publicity' and in that regard I can think of no other prolific publicist than you Mary, oh perhaps with the exception of Thomas.
-
Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn taught us that this is the usual way for science to deal with paradigm-threatening anomalies. The borders of dominant paradigms are often protected by reputation traps, which deter all but the most reckless or brilliant critics.
Huw Price puts forward the view that the very style of critique associated with the LENR discipline which includes in my view the type of observations you make, is instrumental in forging a 'reputation trap'.
-
Thomas
My understanding is that Bayesian probabilities rather than being 'specific' can be either or both objective and subjective. For objectivists, probability objectively measures the plausibility of propositions, i.e. the probability of a proposition corresponds to a reasonable belief everyone (even a "robot") sharing the same knowledge should share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency. Huw Price suggested 'everyone' might be artificially manipulated by particular styles of critique causing some to fear the discourse for personal credibility reasons falsely distorting the facts and scientific progress. For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a 'personal belief' which I think you have alluded to many times. Never the less, the best example in my mind at least, of a review of 'objective' probabilities in respect of the future of LENR in general, is the 'Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003'. www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
.
-
Quote from Huw Price's paper https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
‘anyone who expects a source of power from transformation of… atoms is talking moonshine’
quoting Lord Rutherford, in 1933.
-
Happy new year
-
Thomas
Well, the aspects of epistomology that relate to induction are are rather a hobby of mine,
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists concern themselves with a number of tasks, which we might sort into two
categories. http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/Category 1
First, we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know, something? This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something. While there is some general agreement about some aspects of this issue, we shall see that this question is much more difficult than one might imagine.Category 2
Second, we must determine the extent of human knowledge; that is, how much do we, or can we, know? How can we use our reason, our senses, the testimony of others, and other resources to acquire knowledge? Are there limits to what we can know? For instance, are some things unknowable? Is it possible that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do? Should we
have a legitimate worry about skepticism, the view that we do not or cannot know anything at all?That indeed seems a noble cause, I await to see the fruits of your quest!!
-
Mary
It's a bad idea to be civil with con men.
You are so wrong, as Tom says:
Ad homs like this do your case no good...
and you should know -
I remain of the view that the quality of communication here by some is poor, it devalues and in some cases frustrates the pursuit of discovery, a point made by Huw Price. It appears you have personal experience of quite appalling communications to you, belaying motives which border on conspiracy and I hope you will agree with me that the principle of civilised respectful dialogue applies across the full range of debate and relationships in the pursuit of discovery.
-
Thomas
LOL. Not so different from me then, since for me that is fun!
Whilst I did think that at the time of writing too, even worse I thought we might have something in common. However, our approach is so different. Whereas my quest is essentially 'one of impartial discovery' you appear to be engaged in a 'battle' and of course with battles, history is written by the victor. I think Price acknowledged this and was suggesting this is not an ideal environment for 'honest and impartial' science.
However, I have read many of your other recent posts though and they appear to be uncharacteristically civil, now I am listening!
-
Because its fun. Ad homs like this do your case no good...
That was an interesting response, I'm sorry you felt it was an attack on your character, not my intention, more to discover your motivation. Now I know it is for 'fun' thank you for that.
For me it is to discover insights into aspects of the physical world and our relationship with it as a dynamic.