That's why it is sometimes necessary to get inside the community.   Don't tell Nature Genetics but I am a telecoms engineer who stopped doing biology at 14 because I wanted to do music instead, and wheedled my way into a university Life Sciences dept many years later when I was made redundant from my job in telecoms.

Nigel

On 07/07/2018 20:17, H LV wrote:
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 <mailto: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