In the world aptly described where, science progresses funeral by funeral,
this was an observation about the naysayers, not the innovators. The rare
innovator and their innovations are lost funeral by funeral and there is no
tally of the numbers and importance of the losses inflicted upon this world
by the countless pissant not puissant naysayers. The baby boom generation
educational system history will show became little more than pimped
professorial puppy mills. There parents could purchase for their offspring
yet another most expensive and pretentious 'sticker' and the world became
overwhelmed with lost science puppies. The puppies with no outlet for said
training have in most cases moved on to normal lives. Sadly more than a few
have become armchair cranks, malcontents, critics - collectively trolls. The
internet has proven to be an almost perfect puddle for said failing foolish
puppies to troll, splash, and piddle in. On top of this anonymous posting,
the perfect prescription for 'anti-social media' has removed the last
semblance of humanity in science as the plentiful puppies proceed into
prognosticating grumpy old dogs fouling the pathways of science that no one
cleans up after. What separates real scientists from the puppies is time out
of the armchair at the lab bench, and NO, 'theory' is not synonymous with


From: [] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries




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


>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

























Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: <> ;
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 <> , "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?"



On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <
<> > wrote:


A trusting soul over at <>  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:

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:"

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


- Jed




Reply via email to