On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Keith Nagel wrote:
Hi Horace,
Firstly, the statement you excerpt is largely descriptive, not
prescriptive as my selected statements. But that aside, it
would seem to me that the notion that some white guy with
a beard who lives in the sky is personally responsible for the sinking
of a major American city
Sounds like a topic that will be thrashed for days.
falls pretty squarely under the
"crackpot claim" clause and as such not OT for Vo. The moderator
must agree, because this stuff makes up at least 50% of
Vo. traffic and is not moderated.
you write:
Testing implies use of scientific method. What is avoided is the
*stereotypical* scientific method that depends on an authoritative
approach. Limiting scope to existing authoritative sources is a sure
way to not make the kinds of advances in energy that are so clearly
needed.
The first and third statements are certainly true. The second doesn't
make any sense to me at all.
Well, you have to have to be coming from the perspective of having no
credentials at all to appreciate this issue. 8^)
It would be like saying "the stereotypical
Atheist concerns himself with the teachings of Christ".
I think its more like saying the stereotypical priest concerns
himself with the views of the vatican. Dang this analogy is just
getting wayyyy off topic... 8^)
That's
a believer, and should be characterized as such. The stereotypical
scientific method is just that, test and measure, and experiment
trumps theory. The stereotypical believer is just that, taking
authority over experience and test.
That's science from an individual experimentalist perspective. "Real
science", however, is carried out as a social phenomenon, and only
the high priests of publication sit in final judgement. New ideas
had to wait for them to die off or be replaced. At least that's the
way it used to be.
The main theme of this list has always been science
anomalies, especially in the energy field, starting with the Potapov
device and CF. Given all the publications at LENR-CANR.org, it is
getting so CF is barely in the anomaly category, so maybe it should
be dropped. 8^)
Heh. Maybe it should, it is after all a science and not a crackpot
idea. I've certainly never felt differently about it, have you?
(grin).
Well, I've certainly done nothing but push it in the other
direction. 8^) Still, I'm impressed with how steadily progress has
been made. I just hope the old guys making the progress get there
before they all die off.
It seems to me that if there is a problem it is the lack of people
actually doing any real experimentation or even basic theory. Or...
Yes, but "true believers" DON'T DO EXPERIMENTS, OR EVEN MUCH
THEORIZING.
Yeah, I guess so. Why go to all that trouble if it won't make any
difference anyway. 8^)
However, *we* have the right to complain about OT stuff, and
get it booted off, so it is we who are responsible for letting it get
out of hand.
Well, I complained for a long time to the moderator about this stuff,
until I "saw the light".
It takes a collective public effort to toss junk off the list. At
least we don't currently have any money grubbing frauds pushing their
wares, and vortex has been effective along those lines, but, it is
just a matter of time before another one surfaces.
Oh yes, I don't know if you intend this to be a private discussion,
if not, you can repost my reply publically.
Done. I accidentally responded to you privately because you have
your "reply to" set to yourself.
I hope tis makes it to vortex because some of my posts are hitting a
bit bucket somewhere.
Horace Heffner
