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