Roger-

I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding different 
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses the term 
“science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the social 
entity  which excludes different thinking.

The following from Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of 
nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

“The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have 
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the 
problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but 
now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much 
clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is 
reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there 
are many replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter 
physics and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for 
these anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect 
of the associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much 
like to break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more 
closely matched to experiment.”

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment’s “science 
>community.”  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by 
>financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.
 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as 
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research 
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real data 
in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace afforded 
by the likes of Mills,
Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding, 
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the 
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry 
“science community” will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

Bob Cook
























From: ROGER ANDERTON<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
c...@googlegroups.com<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 
>it.”


but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected


for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:




John S. Bell<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_S._Bell>, "On the impossible 
pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) notes:
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory



On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com<http://lenr-forum.com/> wrote that 
science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid 
ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.


There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."

- Jed



Reply via email to