Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

That's why it is sometimes necessary to get inside the community.   
Don't tell Nature Genetics but I am a telecoms engineer who stopped 
doing biology at 14 because I wanted to do music instead, and wheedled 
my way into a university Life Sciences dept many years later when I was 
made redundant from my job in telecoms.


Nigel

On 07/07/2018 20:17, H LV wrote:
Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts 
within their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the 
Sphinx and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and 
climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of 
years early than they claim.


Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer > wrote:


I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong. I think it
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are
sometimes wrong.

To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives
rise to the problems we now have with people distrusting the
science of vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all
sometimes wrong, and should admit it when we are, as I will be
doing during my talk at the water conference in October.  It is my
experience that scientists do admit they are wrong if presented
with good data.  We managed to get the Nature genetics editors to
admit that a paper that they published a year earlier was largly
incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by presenting
them with some good data.

Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough, and yet the
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been
designed to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was
not.

As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack
of developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy
theorists fire.

Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”

— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report
flaws in their own work.

https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a
website where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe
this is it.

There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in
fizzix smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in
fact no group on the planet has performed more misguided science
than ITER and its predecessors. Despite good intentions they have
been completely dishonest and reckless with spending.

Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy…
“pathological” come to mind but I suspect there is more poor
science in medicine than any other endeavor. The financial
rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick, rich people will
gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.

Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial
inventor is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former
head of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult
then self-materializes around the dead  inventor, especially if
he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to investors – and/or was
“in touch with angels” beforehand.

One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has
hundreds of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was
murdered, despite the contrary evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which
is not out of the question, it could be the start of a new
religion… perhaps with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.

Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[H LV]

Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts within
their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the Sphinx
and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of years
early than they claim.

Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it would
> be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes wrong.
>
> To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to
> the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of
> vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, and
> should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at the water
> conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do admit they
> are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the Nature
> genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year earlier
> was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by
> presenting them with some good data.
>
> Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the
> experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed to
> produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.
>
> As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of
> developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists
> fire.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Quote of the Day
>
> “People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
> scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”
>
> — Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of Confidence
> Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in their own work.
>
>
>
> https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/
>
>
>
> Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website
> where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.
>
>
>
> There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix
> smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group on the
> planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its predecessors.
> Despite good intentions they have been completely dishonest and reckless
> with spending.
>
>
>
> Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” come
> to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than any other
> endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick,
> rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.
>
>
>
> Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor is a
> mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, Elizabeth
> Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes around the dead
>  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to
> investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” beforehand.
>
>
>
> One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds of
> dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite the
> contrary evidence.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk
>
>
>
> If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not out
> of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps with Stan
> as the baptizer, so to speak.
>
>
>
> Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it 
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes 
wrong.


To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to 
the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of 
vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, 
and should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at 
the water conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do 
admit they are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the 
Nature genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year 
earlier was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) 
by presenting them with some good data.


Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the 
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed 
to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.


As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of 
developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy 
theorists fire.


Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As 
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”


— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of 
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in 
their own work.


https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website 
where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.


There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix 
smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group 
on the planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its 
predecessors. Despite good intentions they have been completely 
dishonest and reckless with spending.


Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” 
come to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than 
any other endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, 
since sick, rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for 
the miracle cure.


Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor 
is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, 
Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes 
around the dead  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly 
after talking to investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” 
beforehand.


One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds 
of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite 
the contrary evidence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not 
out of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps 
with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.


Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.