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 <mailto:r...@hush.com>
*Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <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
r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org>
www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org>
lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
--
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>
