To anyone who is interested.
In quoting me, as below, Steve once again uses a communication sent to
him in private to make a point that is a distortion of the intent. I did
not and would not discourage anyone from "reporting all of the key facts
of LENR research". My intent was to suggest caution in how reporting is
done because what he thinks are facts are not always actual facts. A
willingness to examine information from several viewpoints is required
rather than an one-sided view based on incomplete understanding. I
encourage reporting about the field, which most of the time Steve does
very well. My comments were directed to those times when his reporting
was not so good. In this case, the context was about his reports that
involved revealing personal information about people in the field, not
about scientific fact.
Quote from recent blog: "For example, LENR researcher Ed Storms, retired
from Los Alamos National Laboratory, recently discouraged me from
reporting all of the key facts of LENR research. He wrote this to me in
an e-mail recently: “You need to be more careful in how you reveal the
truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so
well-accepted that a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any
problem.”
On the other hand, I fully agree with Steve that papers and talks about
the subject be of the highest quality. The field no longer needs to
accept every strange idea or sloppy experiment in an effort not to
reject a potential breakthrough. We now know enough to judge what is
good and what is likely to be wrong. Of course, a difference of opinion
will always exist in such judgments, which should be settled by rational
discussion between knowledgeable people, not by general criticism in a
blog.
Ed
Steven Krivit wrote:
http://newenergytimes.com/blog/
