Unfortunately for John Huizenga, he will die the broken, angry curmudgeon of a man he is. Were he of a stature anywhere near Ptolemy he might have a place in science ignominy as the primary example of a failed orthodox scientist. But Huizenga is incapable of carrying even Ptolemy's shoes. He sets an example only of narrow-minded orthodoxy espoused by the Church of the Dark Ages (aka consensus science) Good riddance.
On Sat, May 4, 2013, at 01:11 AM, James Bowery wrote: One of the more interesting episodes in science that bears on the cold fusion controversy is the history of "perceptrons" which later became known as "artificial neural nets". Not only was a prominent member of the establishment able to suppress funding to the field through a bogus critique, thereby guaranteeing funding in his own area for approximately 2 decades, but when the field was finally vindicated, the establishment went on an absolutely incredible cover-up of his (and therefore its) role in the suppression. I was there at the second neural networks conference to witness the establishment's avatar rising to give the keynote speech as the guest of "honor". Today you can read the Wikipedia article on "perceptrons" and see what the future may have in store for the likes of Huzinga, et al if cold fusion is vindicated. SD [email protected]
