On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
So, we have someone who is not a scientist, who doesn't know that
the temperature of steam can exceed 100C at atmospheric pressure,
saying that vast majority of people who do science are not
scientists. But let's look at scientific progress in the last 22
years. In the field of cold fusion: score zero.
You are making the logical error of generalizing from the specific.
You clearly have not read the literature or followed the field very
long. I suggest you start with:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Just because one demo is flawed and there are no CF water heaters for
sale at Sears does not mean there has been no scientific progress in
the field.
For me, the absence of a reason to doubt, is not a reason to
believe. And I am not holding my breath waiting for a rational
reason to believe the claims.
Your faith is irrelevant to the purpose, and as voiced above actually
contrary to the stated purpose, of this list. While rational and
quantitative discussion of a specific demo is relevant, generalizing
this to dismissal of the entire field is pathological skepticism.
This list was formed to get away from the interminable, meaningless
and unproductive debate between "pathological skeptics" and "true
believers."
See the vortex-l rules:
http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html
especially Rule 2, and
http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html
http://amasci.com/pathskep.html
Quoting Bill Beaty:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental
filters by provisionally accepting the validity of "impossible"
phenomena
in order to test them. This excellent quote found by Gene Mallove
clearly
states the problem, and reveals the need for "true believers" in a
science
community otherwise ruled by conservative scoffers:
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but
conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.
When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."
- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of
those who believe in the stereotypical "scientific method." While this
does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for
hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to
consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of
hand
without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see
that
we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty.
Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on
Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at scoffing and "hostile disbelief,"
and
at the sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly
proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations
which
conflict with widely accepted theory.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here specifically is rule 2:
2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.) The
tone
here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully
having some
tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in
disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy"
claims
rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board!
and the link regarding pathological skepticism, once again, is:
http://amasci.com/pathskep.html
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
