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 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
