At 12:13 AM 4/2/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 04/01/2010 08:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
>> Of course, *you* can't post on Krivit's
>> blog, he'll never approve any of
>> your posts -- or at any rate that's the
>> impression I got from a brief
>> email exchange with him.
>
> How do you know ...?
Personal communication from Krivit regarding Abd's posts, specifically.
Confirming what Krivit has written directly to me. By the way, that
is, in fact, courteous of him, to let me know that he's not going to
read my mail, generally, so that I don't waste time writing to him
personally. I will, instead, write here or, perhaps (I haven't done
this yet) to those I think might be able to reach him or do some good with it).
It does create some sense of wonder. Can we imagine a serious
journalist who refuses to read critical mail, on-point as to what
he's writing, because it supposedly attacks him?
I've raised many, many specific issues with the reports that Krivit
has been issuing, reports where he considers himself to be fighting
almost alone agains the cold fusion "establishment."
Serious researchers aren't likely to respond directly to him,
certainly the major ones in the field have been so burned by him, as
we can see, that they are shutting down response, and, as I'm
increasingly privy to private communications from some of the
researchers (thanks!), I know that this is a conscious and rational
choice. It's not their job. It's their job to write about what they
have seen and understood, and not to engage in public debate with
those who don't know the field well.
The rest of us can identify issues, questions, that we'd like them to
answer, and that would be a job for an independent commentator like
me. It would have been and perhaps was Krivits job. But Krivit became
something else, an advocate for a particular position in the field,
not a neutral intervenor, asking questions to make matters clear for
everyone. Such a reporter may indeed still raise some hackles, I have
received some very minor objections from one researcher. And
gratitude from everyone else who has contacted me.
I would like to see Widom-Larsen theory fully explained, and
defended. Larsen doesn't need to respond to me, and I've never asked
him to. Perhaps, when I've done more homework, I might try. Perhaps
others can report on efforts they have made. Telling the truth about
our experiences -- which is about us, really, not so much about a
person we have interacted with, though, obviously, there is a
connection -- can help us all to find better understanding.
Here is what I'd recommend to Krivit. Anyone can pass this on if they
think it worthwhile. Krivit claims to be too busy to read my stuff,
and certainly it can get long. What if Krivit authorizes someone he
trusts to read it for him, someone with the time and interest,
hopefully, but at least someone who might understand it in case there
is some value there? This person can ask Krivit questions if he (or
she, perhaps) doesn't understand enough to understand the objection,
and can similarly interact with me to ask questions, either here
(preferably) or privately. And then this person can pass on anything
of value to Krivit. My advice to Krivit would be to choose carefully.
If he can't identify anyone he'd trust enough to do this, well, that
would say something, perhaps Krivit would, just from this, realize
the problem. It's up to him.
Generally speaking, I grant permission to reproduce my writing,
intact, as part of dialog or discussion of issues. I retain the
rights for general publication other than that. If something is to be
used edited, not the complete piece of writing, I'd want to approve
the editing so that I can verify that it hasn't been cherry-picked,
quoted out of context. Krivit heavily edited my comment about the
power of ten error. By writing directly to him, I effectively granted
him permission to do this, which is one reason I'm not offended by
his automatic rejection. However, I would have granted permission for
the excerpt (which was not distorted) if there had been a link to the
complete piece. I recognize the right of an editor to edit material
for his publication. It's necessary, and, indeed, one of my
criticisms of NET has been the tendency in the past to create massive
documents of undigested back-and-forth. It is now that he makes
himself and his ideas and his "original research" (Wikipedia concept)
the center.
> I think he would welcome it.
Decidedly not -- or anyhow that's what he said.
At that time he wanted me to post on his blog; I doubt he still feels
that way. But you never know, reporters always love a good food fight.
Krivit does not seem to understand what neutral examination of an
issue is. Certainly he's lost it. If there is anyone reading this who
cares about Krivit, please try to find a way to reach him. The
conflict is damaging "Cold fusion" and "LENR." It is not helping
Widom-Larsen theory at all, it's confusing it with polemic,
amplifying existing impressions that the research is not reliable,
which then applies by reflection to all research.
Don't confuse this with raising questions so that cogent criticisms
are addressed, that is what is needed. What are the questions? Not
"Krivit's questions," but the questions that experts have on the
research and its implications?
