Like it or not, he IS a scientist, and quite prominently respected as one. And more than that, he is an influential scientist.
And, yes, he reached the point where he doesn't want to hear anything new about CF. Specifically, he pointed out that he doesn't have a lot of free time and must put his attention into those areas that seem most promising. He did not reject the notion that there has been progress in CF; he did assume that there probably hadn't been enough to yet bring it the amount of credibility that might lead him to take another look at CF. I want to stress that this person is rational, friendly, dedicated, not uncurious, and quite accessible. He is, in a nutshell, a good, smart and credible person. By 'framing materials' I mean a written item that out-frames this basic antipathy toward CF. That is, it presents CF in such a way that it systematically overcomes each of the causes of the antipathy. Much of doing this is linguistic - it requires the use of precise and well-conceived language. Lots of people believe that their only obligation in life is to tell their side of the story. Scientists tend, I think, to carry that one step further; many of them believe that they have fully met the obligations of successful communication when they have explained 'the facts' and provided the requisite documentation. I am suggesting not so much that all scientists should be more generous and more active in their communications on science, but that some should, speaking in a sense for their scientific communities. This more-generous communication would directly and effectively address the causes and linguistic structures that lie behind the antipathy to CF, and the format of this more-generous communication should reflect the actualities of human communication, rather than the deliberately isolated formal structures of the scientific establishment (e.g. science conferences, science papers, etc.). I am suggesting that it is worthwhile and important for members of the CF community to go out of their way to communicate the emerging qualities of CF research and knowledge. I do not think this is too much to propose. After all, from its origins, CF communication was botched. People were turned off not because they are dumb, but because their tolerance for communication confusion and scientific disappointment was exceeded. So in that sense, the CF community collectively 'owes' the world repair to this confusion and disappointment. Not that every CFer must do so, but that at least one individual should. What do you think? Does this make sense? Do you want me to say more about 'out-framing'? Or does the above give you an adequate sense of what I am talking about? Lawrence _____ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I was visiting a lab in Cambridge and met a senior, well-respected, and highly intelligent researcher who had at MIT unsuccessfully tried to replicate the original CF experiments. He was now quite dismissive of the possibility of CF advances and clearly wanted to keep distance between himself and the field, to the point of not seeking even to take a second look at the current status of the research. I am quite dismissive of people who will not look at the current status of the research. It may be that some framing materials might be produced to allay some of the meta-concerns that people in his situation still have. I do not know what "framing materials" means. This person should read the peer-reviewed literature and Ed's book. He will find that the experiment is difficult. If he reads carefully he will probably learn why his own experiment failed. If he is not willing to do this, he is not a scientist. - Jed _____ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I was visiting a lab in Cambridge and met a senior, well-respected, and highly intelligent researcher who had at MIT unsuccessfully tried to replicate the original CF experiments. He was now quite dismissive of the possibility of CF advances and clearly wanted to keep distance between himself and the field, to the point of not seeking even to take a second look at the current status of the research. I am quite dismissive of people who will not look at the current status of the research. It may be that some framing materials might be produced to allay some of the meta-concerns that people in his situation still have. I do not know what "framing materials" means. This person should read the peer-reviewed literature and Ed's book. He will find that the experiment is difficult. If he reads carefully he will probably learn why his own experiment failed. If he is not willing to do this, he is not a scientist. - Jed
