what is their profile at ANS ? Scientists ?(I mean the APS like, MIT like, Science/Nature Like) Industrialists ? (Business) Engineers (in the french meaning: link between science and industry, between project and technology, between feasible and done)? Applied scientist ? (a science version of the engineer)
Industrialist and engineers have a tendency to accept facts more easily, even if they are conservative, and have a tendency to trust scientists and mainstream. They have less dogma, but much trust and in scientific domain, a great modesty (that hopefully they compensate in the business domain). Pure scientists (not applied scientists) are more dogmatic, preferring crazy unproven hypothesis that match their assumptions, than accepting facts that break all their books. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be what I've observed, with my own bias. 2012/11/13 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > > Possibly also, but I see no reason why WL are wrong about lightning. I was >> simply pointing out that though they may well be correct about neutron >> production in lightning, I suspect they are wrong about neutron >> production in a >> lattice. >> > > It would be kind of fun if Widom and Larsen end up proving everyone wrong. > I do not imagine Larsen will have an easy time at the American Nuclear > Society tomorrow, if they are anything like the American Physical Society. > > Eric > >
