[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pluralism in Science​​: A Call to Action​

[Lennart Thornros]

I do not know that we need a new philosophy (not qualified to judge about
that).
However, having said that I agree with most of the writing (the excerpt
from H Chang's book).
'There are always two possibilities' is a rule I think is a simpler way of
accepting something similar to what you propose.
If there always are two possibilities then there is an infinitive number of
possibilities - just they can only be overcome a pair at a time.
I did read Peter Gluck's blog this morning (as I do most mornings), he is a
smart guy so he also think that the solution to LENR need better
organization (leadership, passion, openness to different ways to find a
solution).
I think Vortex has several sharp minds with solutions that might be
correct. The problem is that there is no openness to verify, THE ONE
solution and then take the next step.
I understand that there is a desire to be the one providing the right
theory or to make a whole lot of money from creating the commercial LENR.
That is normal and fine with me. As Peter suggested if we can find a person
willing to fund the research, then we can create an organization with the
right composition of intelligence and knowledge. The idea is not new. I
know at least one website that propose to create this organization, I think
that most things has its time and that this is the right time to create
this organization. The progress indicated by A. Rossi and IH should make
someone with a passion and deep pockets intrigued and willing to take a
calculated chance.
Even if AR and IH are well ahead the gap can be covered in a very short
time. In addition the market place will easily include many players.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> From off list
> 
>
>
> Dear H. Veeder,
>
>
>
> I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and
> is rather self-explanatory.
>
>
> Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately).
>
>
> http://philosophypeterkinane.com/
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter Kinane
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder  wrote:
>
>> The post ​b
>> elow
>> ​includes
>>  part A of chapter 5 from the book
>>  ​
>>
>>
>> Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism
>> ​
>> by ​
>> Hasok Chang
>> ​, 2012.​ (available on amazon.com)
>>
>>
>>
>> link to complete C
>> ​hapter 5​:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science
>> ​: A Call to Action​
>>
>>
>> Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic?
>> ​Plurality: from acceptance to celebration
>> Monism and pluralism
>> Why pluralism is not relativism
>> Is pluralism paralyzing?
>> Can we afford it all?​
>>
>>
>> Plurality
>> ​: from acceptance to celebration​
>>
>>
>>
>> I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly
>>
>>
>> convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even
>>
>>
>> genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK,
>>
>>
>> that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist
>> way of
>>
>>
>> thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded
>>
>>
>> past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look.
>>
>>
>> More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I
>>
>>
>> became convinced that there was something worth preserving in
>>
>>
>> Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO
>>
>>
>> formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas
>>
>>
>> that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me
>>
>>
>> in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of
>>
>>
>> heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it
>>
>>
>> superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the
>>
>>
>> middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make
>>
>>
>> generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too
>>
>>
>> suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a
>>
>>
>> persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions
>>
>>
>> about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own
>>
>>
>> thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common
>>
>>
>> intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific
>> question,
>>
>>
>> and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict
>>
>>
>> was final.
>>
>> ​​
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pluralism in Science​​: A Call to Action​

[H Veeder]

>From off list



Dear H. Veeder,



I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and
is rather self-explanatory.


Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately).


http://philosophypeterkinane.com/


Regards,


Peter Kinane

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> The post ​b
> elow
> ​includes
>  part A of chapter 5 from the book
>  ​
>
>
> Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism
> ​
> by ​
> Hasok Chang
> ​, 2012.​ (available on amazon.com)
>
>
>
> link to complete C
> ​hapter 5​:
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science
> ​: A Call to Action​
>
>
> Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic?
> ​Plurality: from acceptance to celebration
> Monism and pluralism
> Why pluralism is not relativism
> Is pluralism paralyzing?
> Can we afford it all?​
>
>
> Plurality
> ​: from acceptance to celebration​
>
>
>
> I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly
>
>
> convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even
>
>
> genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK,
>
>
> that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist
> way of
>
>
> thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded
>
>
> past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look.
>
>
> More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I
>
>
> became convinced that there was something worth preserving in
>
>
> Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO
>
>
> formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas
>
>
> that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me
>
>
> in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of
>
>
> heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it
>
>
> superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the
>
>
> middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make
>
>
> generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too
>
>
> suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a
>
>
> persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions
>
>
> about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own
>
>
> thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common
>
>
> intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific
> question,
>
>
> and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict
>
>
> was final.
>
> ​​
>
>