I think you guys have many good suggestions so I am not dissing what you say. However, IMHO there are a couple of factors that makes your excellent ideas hard in today's society. First we have patent laws combined with greed from misc. academical organizations trying to get some edge over each other. They all are funded by us tax payers but internal competition makes the utilization of new findings slow and tedious - inefficient if you prefer. Then we have the fact that most funding is coming from the same place. That means; 'old boys network', brown-nosing and corruption (mostly as 'if I scratch your back you will scratch mine'). will have at least as much influence over where funds are allocated as result. (See fusion.) Another thing that I am sure is an obstacle is that there is no organization with purpose involved. If ideas were developed by teams under leadership of people good at organize and lead rather than scientists a more efficient progress can be accomplished. My experience is that leadership often goes to the sciebtist with the best knowledge of the subject. That is a poor solution. Rather let the scientist handle what he is best at and leave the leadership to a pro (who does not need to know anything about the topic).
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 <r...@hush.com> > *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 <r...@hush.com> > *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 <rod...@comcast.net> > *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> > 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 <http://www.lenrexplained.com> > > > > -- > Ruby Carat > Eureka, CA USA > 1-707-616-4894 > r...@coldfusionnow.org > www.coldfusionnow.org > lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com> > >
