Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Lennart Thornros]

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 other. They all are funded
by us tax payers but internal competition makes the utilization of new
findings slow and tedious - inefficient if you prefer.
Then we have the fact that most funding is coming from the same place. That
means; 'old boys network', brown-nosing and corruption (mostly as 'if I
scratch your back you will scratch  mine'). will have at least as much
influence over where funds are allocated as result. (See fusion.)
Another thing that I am sure is an obstacle is that there is no
organization with purpose involved. If ideas were developed by teams under
leadership of people good at organize and lead rather than  scientists a
more efficient progress can be accomplished. My experience is that
leadership often goes to the sciebtist with the best knowledge of the
subject. That is a poor solution. Rather let the scientist handle what he
is best at and leave the leadership to a pro (who does not need to know
anything about the topic).

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, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> 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 them from
> the rolls of scientists, IMHO.
>
> For humans in general your comment that “so the obvious to one is not the
> obvious to another” is very true IMHO.  This agreement coming from  being
> married to a good human for 50 years in July of this year.
>
> To reach your goal of consensus on basic ideas, you need a committee of
> three true scientists that are all independent (never worked together) to
> select two committees of scientists (not too many—maybe 7 or 9) who are to
> develop a consensus—100% agreement on the basics. The 3 original selecting
> persons should oversee the working committees actions and discussions and
> by consensus of the 3, replace any working committee members not using
> scientific process in deliberation, or not able to grasp the obvious.
>
> The results of the committees should be compared at the end of the work.
> The 3 member selection committee should be responsible for identifying
> reasons why the two separate consensus of basics were different, if they
> are not the same.  This would be accomplished by questioning the two
> committees as to the rational of the basic ideas set forth, and listening
> to the comments/responses of one  committee to the others consensus.
>
> The committee of three would then be responsible to establish their own
> consensus of basics ideas—theories.
>
> I worked in an organization for 18 years where a similar tactic was used
> to develop a working technology.  The competition among committees (groups
> of engineers and scientists) was an important factor in a quality
> consensus.  However, there was generally only one or two individual
> technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the
> final decision about the theory.
>
> Bob
>
> *From:* Ruby 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
>
>
> 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 there is no consensus on what is happening from the
> community itself even after almost three decades of research data.
> there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in
> to form the theory.
> Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
> So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?
>
> I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would
> pledge to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would
> form the core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..
>
> Ruby
>
>
> On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
> I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the
> obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s
> paper, and  some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct
> scientific action.
>
> I repeat my earlier comment—“It is 

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

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 them from the rolls 
of scientists, IMHO.   

For humans in general your comment that “so the obvious to one is not the 
obvious to another” is very true IMHO.  This agreement coming from  being 
married to a good human for 50 years in July of this year. 

To reach your goal of consensus on basic ideas, you need a committee of three 
true scientists that are all independent (never worked together) to select two 
committees of scientists (not too many—maybe 7 or 9) who are to develop a 
consensus—100% agreement on the basics. The 3 original selecting persons should 
oversee the working committees actions and discussions and by consensus of the 
3, replace any working committee members not using scientific process in 
deliberation, or not able to grasp the obvious.   

The results of the committees should be compared at the end of the work.  The 3 
member selection committee should be responsible for identifying reasons why 
the two separate consensus of basics were different, if they are not the same.  
This would be accomplished by questioning the two committees as to the rational 
of the basic ideas set forth, and listening to the comments/responses of one  
committee to the others consensus.  

The committee of three would then be responsible to establish their own 
consensus of basics ideas—theories.  

I worked in an organization for 18 years where a similar tactic was used to 
develop a working technology.  The competition among committees (groups of 
engineers and scientists) was an important factor in a quality consensus.  
However, there was generally only one or two individual 
technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the final 
decision about the theory.  

Bob 

From: Ruby 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


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 there is no consensus on what is happening from the 
community itself even after almost three decades of research data. 
there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in to 
form the theory.
Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?

I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would pledge 
to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would form the 
core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..

Ruby


On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

  I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the 
obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s 
paper, and  some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct scientific 
action.  

  I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large 
fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.”

  The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places like 
universities and media outlets.  Ed worked at one such  DOE entity any years, 
as did I, although not the same one.  I thought that Ed was referring to the 
managements of such places (and not many of the true scientists that worked 
with him) when he identified the option they have.

  Thanks again for your comment, 

  Bob


  From: Ruby 
  Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info



  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 contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".



  On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

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 phenomena. 

To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   
  
Bob Cook


From: Robert Dorr 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 

Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Ruby]

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 there is no consensus on what is happening from 
the community itself even after almost three decades of research data.
there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in 
to form the theory.

Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?

I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would 
pledge to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that 
would form the core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..


Ruby


On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the 
obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read 
Ed’s paper, and  some with think that rejecting the obvious is a 
correct scientific action.
I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a 
large fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of 
such folks.”
The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places 
like universities and media outlets.  Ed worked at one such  DOE 
entity any years, as did I, although not the same one.  I thought that 
Ed was referring to the managements of such places (and not many of 
the true scientists that worked with him) when he identified the 
option they have.

Thanks again for your comment,
Bob
*From:* Ruby 
*Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


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 contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".



On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

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 phenomena.
To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is _not_ part of 
science.  Thus, this is _not_ an option for real scientists, only 
make believe righteous people  who claim to know the truth.
It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the 
so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.

Bob Cook
*From:* Robert Dorr 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of 
LENR. I like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 



cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

All the best,
peter




--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
www.coldfusionnow.org 
lenrexplained.com 




--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
www.coldfusionnow.org 
lenrexplained.com 

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

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 that rejecting the 
obvious is not a correct scientific action.   I think that was the context of 
Ed’s paper--- “accept the facts of experience” as you note.   

I did not like the inference of the quote that Science has an option; only 
non-science, faith based mental activity, has that option—to ignore facts and 
accept miracles. 

I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the obvious.  
  I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s paper, and  
some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct scientific action.  

I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large 
fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.”

The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places like 
universities and media outlets.  Ed worked at one such  DOE entity any years, 
as did I, although not the same one.  I thought that Ed was referring to the 
managements of such places (and not many of the true scientists that worked 
with him) when he identified the option they have.

Thanks again for your comment, 

Bob


From: Ruby 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

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 contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".

Ruby


On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

  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 phenomena. 

  To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

  It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   

  Bob Cook


  From: Robert Dorr 
  Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


  A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I 
like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. 

  Robert Dorr
  WA7ZQR


  At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 

cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

All the best,
peter





-- 
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
r...@coldfusionnow.org
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Ruby]

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 contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".

Ruby


On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

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 
phenomena.
To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is _not_ part of 
science.  Thus, this is _not_ an option for real scientists, only make 
believe righteous people  who claim to know the truth.
It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the 
so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.

Bob Cook

*From:* Robert Dorr 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of 
LENR. I like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 



cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

All the best,
peter




--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
www.coldfusionnow.org 
lenrexplained.com 

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

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 phenomena. 

To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   
  
Bob Cook



From: Robert Dorr 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I like 
Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. 

Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:

  
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 

  cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

  All the best,
  peter
  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com