At 03:39 PM 10/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
If Vyosotski's work can't be replicated, okay, maybe he made some
mistakes. Science advances through mistakes. But I don't see any
sign that anyone has tried to replicate him.
Of course no has tried to replicate him! If you are serious, you are
more naive than I thought.
No, I'm thinking more broadly than you. You are thinking only within
the "establishment," and about people highly motivated by career
considerations, with little or no courage to pursue science, as
distinct from social popularity (which connects with economic success).
Vyosotskii could be replicated by an amateur, in theory. Or by a
tenured professor who doesn't care about popularity. Or by some
commercial enterprise which sees that a long shot could nevertheless
pay off handsomely. If it's cheap, it makes economic sense to try it.
It would be career suicide for a professional scientist to suggest
a replication, or even talk about this work.
In a world where science is rejected and "Science" has become a
religion, not to be questioned or challenged.
Is that our world? Not entirely, Jed! That's why we are here, that is
why you put so much energy into cold fusion. What you just wrote
about Vysotoskii (I kept mispelling it....) was, in fact, the case
with cold fusion. But did that mean that nobody tried to replicate?
Vyosotskii is likely to be replicated in Russia, if nowhere else. Or
in China, or Japan. But when? I don't know.
I do not suppose that professional scientists spend their lives
looking over their shoulders, worried about public opinion, or what
Robert Park may say about them. That's an exaggeration. On the other
hand, anyone who has gotten as far as graduate school will know
about academic politics, and will know there are some lines you do not cross.
Religious lines, of course. Taboo.
Cold fusion is over that line, and Vyosotski is wa-a-a-y past cold
fusion, even farther over that line.
It certainly seems so. But ... that is purely an appearance. In fact,
objectively, biological transmutation may be more likely that cold
fusion seemed to be, because it could be through, say, accelerated
nuclear decay, known to be capable of chemical influence.
For a scientist to discuss it would be like a U.S. politician
going out on weekends on WWII reenactments dressed as a member of
the Waffen-SS, like this nitwit did:
<http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/15/definition-of-a-bad-political-photo-op-rich-iotts-nazi-reenactment/>http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/15/definition-of-a-bad-political-photo-op-rich-iotts-nazi-reenactment/
He's a nitwit if he cares about cheap shots. Some do, some don't.
Some don't get re-elected. Personally, if I were elected to office,
I'd consider it a major burden that I'd have to suppress my own
interests, based on how something might look to the uninformed. Maybe
I'd take that on, maybe not.
I'm actually facing this issue, to some extent, right now, over cold
fusion.... To some, my interest in it looks really bad.
