I too was not aware of Ashmore's paper... But it doesn't surprise me at all.
Especially when Woods was 'recruited' by several scientists who obviously
thought it was bogus
science... They got the answer they were expecting.
Further, regarding the polywater debunking...
For those who think that there was nothing to it, you need to view the
following presentation by
Gerald Pollack, professor of Bioengineering at Univ of Washington.
mms://media-wm.cac.washington.edu/ifs/uw_fac_welife_wm9.asf
It is now firmly established, via peer-reviewed research, that next to an
interface, water organizes
itself into a regular crystal structure, and this organized structure extends
much much further out
from the interface that current theory suggests; millions of molecular
distances unstead of 2 or 3.
Although Dr. Pollack doesn't specifically refer to this region as a polymer, he
does refer to it as
being a liquid crystal...
The problem is that very few 'scientists' do their own investigation of these
'debunking' episodes
in order to truly know what ALL the facts are. They simply rely on the
'opinion' of some article in
the Journals they read; or worse yet, the mainstream media. Once presented
with all of the source
material, which tells the entire picture, if they choose not to take the time
to review that
material so they have all the facts as close to the source as possible, then
they don't deserve the
title of scientist. This is exactly the reason for Dr. Robert Duncan's
statement on the 60-Minutes
segment on Cold Fusion,
"Don't let others do your thinking for you...
Read the literature, visit the labs and talk to the researchers."
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 03:27 PM 5/27/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>http://tinyurl.com/4256qxb (Give it a minute to load.) Harry
>
>Thanks. Fascinating. First of all, it's long been obvious to me that
>Wood did not conclusively debunk N-rays. What he did was to set up a
>plausible alternate explanation of the experimental reports.
Wow! Let me really recommend that paper:
Malcolm Ashmore, "The Theatre of the Blind, Starring a Promethean Prankster, a
Phoney Phenomenon, a
Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood," Social Studies of Science, 23:1,
February, 1993, pp. 67-106.
The author discloses his bias, in a remarkable passage: "I hope to cast
sufficient doubt on Wood's
credibility as a reporter (not to mention as an ethical actor), to provoke some
reassessment of
this, and similar episodes."
And he goes on to make it clear what he's talking about:
[snip]
