Since I'm a bit conservative about sciences, but i'm clearly materialist, I tried to have a method on how to treat unbelievable evidences, not making the Huizenga or Taubes pathetic anti-science claims, that anything far from theory is artifact, no need to check. It is also not far from a better version of precaution principles.
my idea now is the following, if you face an unbelievable result, first you try to find artifacts, and YOU CHECK, that they explain your result FULLY. If something remains, you try hard to reproduce the anomaly, until either you find an artifact that EXPLAIN ALL, or a pile of experiments that reproduce the anomaly. You ask others to reproduce your anomaly, various way, helping them, sharing, pushing them not to abandon too early... If it is unbelievable and confirmed, then you can BELIEVE you are wrong, but not be SURE. so you goal is then to CONTINUE, hard, to reproduce, improve protocols, to re-confirm or find a problem... what you should not do (or what public research should not do) is abandon when facing an unexplained success. Normally if like me you believe parapsychology does not work, it will disapear with more tests... another track of research is that if you have found an artifact that you don't now (statistic, bias...) you will make a DISCOVERY of that artifact. it may even be useful. for LENR if it was non nuclear, it would be a potential breakthrough in chemistry, in energy storage, in catalysis, in thermal laws... there is no excuse not to look at an experiment that stubbornly violate the laws. At best it change the laws, at worst you find a crazy artifact which may be useful, if not salable. for precaution principle, my variant is that anything that may be dangerous, should be carefully studied, not ignored... at best to discover it is save, at best to measure how bad it is, and how to protect from it. Unknown unknown is more dangerous than known danger, for an intelligent being. 2014/1/12 Foks0904 . <[email protected]> > James, > > The example you (and Beaudette) provide speaks directly to the nonsensical > denial based on "reproducibility". When politically convenient for the > science community, all experiments get compared to over-simplified two-body > interactions in vacua. Similar denialism occurs in parapsychology research, > where basically no artifacts can be identified so the pseudo skeptics have > now resorted to bringing into question ALL statistical analysis in the > field of psychology. Its a sad joke. > > Regards, > John > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:48 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Beaudette, "Excess Heat": >> >> Fleck's essential commentary upon the scientific methodology found in his >> study of the Wassermann Test was set forth in the following lengthy >> quotation: >> >> The epistemologically most important turning point occurred with the >> detection of syphilitic antibodies ... During the initial experiments it >> produced barely 15-20 percent positive results in cases of confirmed >> syphilis. How could it then increase to the 70-90 percent found in later >> statistics? *This turning point represented the actual invention of the >> Wasserman reaction as a useful test.* The theory of the reaction as >> well as the historical and psychological circumstances surrounding its >> conception are of less practical importance. *If the relation of the >> Wassermann reaction to syphilis is a fact, it became a fact only because of >> its extreme utility owing to the high probability of success in concrete >> cases.* The moment this decisive turn occurred cannot be accurately >> determined. No authors can be specified who consciously brought it about. >> We cannot state exactly when it occurred nor explain logically how it >> happened. (Emphasis in the original.) >> >> >> I will assume that the Wassermann Test was a product of scientific >> activity, and that its use held the status of being recognized as a >> scientific test by the scientific community of its day and continuing. >> (Fleck's book has been reissued by the University of Chicago Press.) >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I think we can agree the LENR effect is difficult to produce. Many >>> people have made it work, some with ease and some with difficulty. About >>> 800 examples are now described in the literature. However, this success was >>> not universal and has not revealed why it works sometimes and not at >>> others. This difficulty was used as a reason to reject the claim because it >>> justified the belief in the impossibility of the effect. Now we know a lot >>> more about the reality of the effect, so that the difficulty in replicating >>> is only an inconvenience because a phenomenon can not be studied when it >>> can not be made to happen. However, this inconvenience means nothing. LENR >>> is an ordinary phenomenon of nature that we do not yet understand. >>> >>> I'm in the process of studying all the explanations and comparing them >>> to what is known in LENR and in general science. The failure to make >>> progress in explaining LENR is easy to see and a clear path to the correct >>> explanation is becoming obvious, at least to me. The problem has a >>> solution if you know where to look. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:43 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: >>> >>> Beaudette blames the US nuclear physicists , deified after Manhattan >>> project, used with easy experimental setup where things always works the >>> same... >>> >>> even nuclear experimentalist are too theoretical compared to the least >>> chemist or biologist... >>> >>> when nuclear physicist denied LENr because it could not be replicated at >>> 100% , ignoring it was sure replicated. >>> when they stupidly asked for exact replication, which in real science is >>> the best way to replicate artifacts, they were behaving like rotten kind >>> used with easy science, easy experimental setup and perfect theory. >>> >>> i don't know if US Nuclear Physicist are the only to blame. >>> on other subject I see the same deification of theory, of models, with >>> observation ignored or tweaked when they dissent with models or theory. >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/12 James Bowery <[email protected]> >>> >>>> I wonder what would have happened if terrorists had killed all of the >>>> faculty of all of the Ivy League schools, including CalTech on April 15, >>>> 1989. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> The lack of realism, combined with ignorance of the theoretical >>>>> physicists was only one subfield of the war lost by cold fusion. A more >>>>> holistic view of the situationi >>>>> is necessary I daretothink. >>>>> Nobody was able to explain CF- it seemed unknown nuclear >>>>> multi-mystery phenomena with a weak correlation between nuclearity and the >>>>> essential heat release take place. However, as the experimental results >>>>> have multiplied and diversified- the seemingly inborn weakness of bad >>>>> reproducibility has fatally eroded the reputation of cold fusion. >>>>> The usual culprits- il-willed, sadistic, stupid, stubborn skeptics- >>>>> enjoy the help of the inner. inherent flaws of cold fusion. >>>>> All these facts can be simply understood if we admit that cold fusion >>>>> was discovered before its time- when it could not been explained or >>>>> demonstrated experimentally. >>>>> It iis very sad that these problems stay still unsolved >>>>> despite heroic efforts; and this shows the efforts are not going in >>>>> the proper direction. The scientific method >>>>> ALONE cannot solve the CF's existential problems. >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I thought this was an interesting viewpoint expressed by B.J. Hiley, >>>>>> David Bohms longtime collaborator, on the nature of theoreticians and >>>>>> their >>>>>> relationship to experimental science. As he puts it: >>>>>> >>>>>> *I didn’t mind doing it because I think it’s very important if you’re >>>>>> doing theoretical physics to get a feel of what it’s like in a >>>>>> laboratory, >>>>>> making things work. I’ve heard some theoreticians talking and it’s quite >>>>>> clear they don’t even know what a laboratory is. They’ve never been in a >>>>>> laboratory and they’ve never tried to get even simple bits of apparatus >>>>>> working. They just have ideas of what the measurement is—and it’s nothing >>>>>> like that. It’s much too idealized.* >>>>>> >>>>>> I feel this captures perfectly the character of the controversies >>>>>> surrounding Pons and Fleischman in 1989. Most of the critics of their >>>>>> work >>>>>> were theoreticians who, beyond knowing what constituted good neutron >>>>>> detection, didn't know a thing about what constituted good lab work in >>>>>> chemistry generally and calorimetry specifically. As a result the >>>>>> majority >>>>>> of people threw the baby (excess heat) out with the bathwater (nuclear >>>>>> products). They were silly enough to proclaim that P and F were "working >>>>>> outside their area of expertise" when in fact its likely not a single >>>>>> critic from the physics community would have even know how to set up an >>>>>> electrolytic cell, let alone how to upkeep and monitor one over an >>>>>> extended >>>>>> test period. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rest of the article can be found here for those that are >>>>>> interested: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>>>> Cluj, Romania >>>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
