The next post in this series is called Rydberg matter and cavitation.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I am beginning a survey of cold fusion experiments that span the many > disparate paradigms of cold fusion in which I will attempt to unite them > with Rydberg matter as a unifying causation principal. > > > > See the first post “Cold Fusion Magic Dust” > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Guenter Wildgruber >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > post #3 >> > >> > intermediate note. >> > >> > The case of Case. >> > >> > He is definitely not your typical scientist. >> > He is/was a practitioner with >30years experience, and as such one does >> not >> > so much rely on theory but on intuition. >> > What works and not is more in your bones and not in your head. >> > >> > This makes a difference, because this is not peer-reviewable, and >> reveals a >> > fundamental problem of peer-reviewed scientific method: That it scraps >> > intuition altogether and replaces it by a mechanical method of >> > intersubjective verification, where all the intricate details are put >> under >> > the rug of the method. >> > >> > The fight is about those accepting some sort of sublime, and those who >> build >> > up knowledge up from the robust, i.e. the hard skeptics. >> > >> > What the hard skeptics miss, is, that their axioms -ie Occam- are on >> shaky >> > ground, or more to the point: Occam does not have a foundation in >> 'reality'. >> >> I think occam's razor is useful for selecting explanatory axioms which >> emerge from a given philosphical outlook or paradigm, but it is a >> ridiculous basis for evaluating and comparing explanations which >> emerge from different paradigms. >> >> >
