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 <mailto:rod...@comcast.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org>
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
