Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts within
their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the Sphinx
and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of years
early than they claim.

Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote:

> I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it would
> be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes wrong.
>
> To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to
> the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of
> vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, and
> should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at the water
> conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do admit they
> are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the Nature
> genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year earlier
> was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by
> presenting them with some good data.
>
> Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the
> experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed to
> produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.
>
> As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of
> developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists
> fire.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Quote of the Day
>
> “People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
> scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”
>
> — Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of Confidence
> Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in their own work.
>
>
>
> https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/
>
>
>
> Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website
> where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.
>
>
>
> There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix
> smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group on the
> planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its predecessors.
> Despite good intentions they have been completely dishonest and reckless
> with spending.
>
>
>
> Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” come
> to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than any other
> endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick,
> rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.
>
>
>
> Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor is a
> mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, Elizabeth
> Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes around the dead
>  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to
> investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” beforehand.
>
>
>
> One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds of
> dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite the
> contrary evidence.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk
>
>
>
> If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not out
> of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps with Stan
> as the baptizer, so to speak.
>
>
>
> Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to