I think you guys have many good suggestions so I am not dissing what you
say.
However, IMHO there are a couple of factors that makes your excellent ideas
hard in today's society.
First we have patent laws combined with greed from misc. academical
organizations trying to get some edge over each
Ruby--
You noted:
”Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect to
see,
so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.”
Not to drive a dead horse, but I would not call the “many” that “see only what
they expect to see” scientists. That state of mind keeps
Thank you Bob for clarifying that.
I did not know what you meant.
I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition!
Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they
expect to see,
so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.
LENR is unique in that
Ruby--
Ruby--
I appreciate your comment.
I had to think about what the quote meant for some time. I did read Ed’s paper
and agree with a lot of it, particularly the establishment’s influence on LENR
research over the years.
I looked at the literal meaning of his quote and concluded
Bob, you are quoting out of context.
I am guessing you did not read the paper yet, for in this case, "the
obvious" refers to "the scientific results".
That is to say "accept the experimental results and form a theory
around the data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model.
The
Peter--
You quoted Ed Storms as follows:
“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the
impossible” (Ed Storms)
IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying to
explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real
6 matches
Mail list logo
