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.
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
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of
years early than they claim.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.