>From Jed: ...
> I think that he [Levi] and other observers who have seen the test > are convinced, but you have to calibrate his way of talking. Academic > scientists tend to hedge everything they say so much it sometimes > sounds as if they lack confidence. It is a style of speaking. You > don't say "I am sure of X." You put it in the passive voice and wrap > it in semantic cotton wool: "strong indications with reliable > instrumentation that give a reliable approximation within the known > error bounds that X is highly probable . . ." Last week 31 I touched on some of these linguistic issues out in a local Yahoo Science Fiction literary group where I'm an active participant. Many who belong to this yahoo group tend to be very skeptical of "cold fusion" claims. As such it's occasionally challenging for me to get the relevant points across before some self-appointed skeptic decides it's time to set me straight concerning the truth about "cold fusion". Here's a portion of what I posted: Excerpt: Before concluding my on-going report on the Rossi/Hyde saga, I feel compelled to add a final point in regards to the scientific lingo often employed by scientists and professors, including those who independently analyzed Focardi & Rossi's prototype. Reports of these kinds tend to be encapsulated in both turgid and emotionally unsatisfying ways, as read by Mr. Joe Six-Pack. Linguistic protocols and formulaic rituals must be observed, scrupulously. And always, always, ALWAYS, at the end of the report, clearly state that more thorough testing is warranted. In regards to the Focardi-Rossi demonstration, one is not likely to read a scientific report couched in "Six-Pack" language such as: "HOLY MERDA! Rossi's four foot tin foiled-wrapped stogie really smokes! It was like watching picante bologna strapped on top of a solid fuel booster! What a blast! Give'em hell, Rossi!" One is more likely to read carefully parsed scientific-jargon-speak coached in phrases such as the following, as written by David J Nagel, who is a prominent cold fusion researcher residing out of George Washington University: "Given the measured input and output temperatures, that flow rate, and a measurement that the steam was dry, it is easy to compute that the device delivered over 10kW of thermal energy to the water. The data indicate power and energy gains of more than 10. That amplification is what the International Thermonuclear Experimental reactor (ITER) seeks to achieve in about a decade for well over $10B." See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJchecklistf.pdf Give'em hell, Rossi! ******************************************************** I divided my yahoo essay into four separate posts. I think (I hope) the contents are still reasonably accurate, considering the timeframe in which it was written . "Dr Rossi and Mr. Hyde, PART 1 of 4 - Warp 7 NOW, Scottie!" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MadSF/message/5396 Dr Rossi and Mr. Hyde, PART 2 of 4 - Say What? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MadSF/message/5397 Dr Rossi and Mr. Hyde, PART 3 of 4 - Mr. Hyde, I presume http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MadSF/message/5398 Dr Rossi and Mr. Hyde, PART 4 of 4 - Holey Bologna, Batman! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MadSF/message/5399 So far, no one has cared to respond. That's a tad unusual. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
