Yes, you got it. I would distinguish between 'dedicated skeptics' -- people who have a vested interest in being opposed to something, and those who have yet to be convinced and will be somewhat hard-nosed about accepting new perspectives on something. Perhaps this latter group constitutes, say, 95% of the 'skeptics'. I would say, forget the other 5%, the effort is not worth it.
But the larger group would not be hard to 'reach', and I don't think it would take a lot to get many of them -- say a third, to read something that is succinct (2-3 pages?), reasonable and comprehensive. Scientists are naturally curious and busy. Can something be created that meets at the same time the criteria that are implied in both qualities? -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:19 AM To: debiv...@evolutionaryservices.org; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy At 11:03 AM 10/22/2009, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: >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? > I think I know what you mean. It would be a piece of writing that systematically approaches the misconceptions that keep people from taking a closer look at the evidence. It would start by stating very clearly the reasons why cold fusion is possible, establishing and showing a clear understanding of why it would be properly rejected. Then it would carefully, and step-by-step, dismantle this. The trick, though, would be getting a dedicated skeptic to read it. Perhaps you approach him and ask him for a favor, would he criticize this? But you'd have to have the connection with him.
