sorry, your comment is too good to be ignored. you have been quoted ! http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2043-How-MIT-discovered-LENR-in-2015-History-written-by-the-losers&p=5326#post5326
and Nassim Nicholas taleb too: Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain well that story as systematic, in Antifragile. You can get some example "History being written by the losers" http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Triana-fwd.pdf Then I realized that there has to be a problem with education—any form of formal education. I collected enough evidence that once you get a theory in your head, you can no longer understand how people can operate without it. And you look at practitioners, lecture them on how to do their business, and live under the illusion that they owe you their lives. Without your theories and your learning they will never go anywhere. The biggest myth I’ve encountered in my life is as follows: that the road from practical know-how to theoretical knowledge is reversible—in other words, that theoretical knowledge can lead to practical applications, just as practical applications can lead to theoretical knowledge. After all, this is the reason we have schools, universities, professors, research centers, homework, exams, essays, dissertations, and the strange brand of individuals called “economists. Yet the strange thing is that it is very hard to realize that knowledge cannot travel equally in both directions. It flows better from practice to theory—but to understand it you have nontheoretical knowledge. And people who have nontheoretical knowledge don’t think of these things. It is not just that history is written by the winners; it is written by the losers—those losers with access to the printing press, namely finance professors. I noted while reading a book by Mark Rubinstein how he stuck the names of finance professors on products we practitioners had been trading and perfecting at least a decade earlier. History written by the losers? A prime example is how the historian managed to downplay his “portfolio insurance,” a method that failed miserably in the crash of 1987. History is truly written by losers with time on their hands and a protected academic position. In the greatest irony, the historical account of techné in derivatives pricing that Haug and I wrote was submitted in response to an invitation by an encyclopedia of quantitative finance. The editor of the historical section, proceeded to rewrite our story to reverse its message and glorify the epistemé crowd. Antifragile treat the point with more detail, more reference, more examples<http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820> . sadly you understand what is happening today in some sentences 2013/6/22 Eric Walker <[email protected]> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > > Most skeptics are conformists and they will believe whatever the >> mainstream institutions tell them to believe. > > > The general public may not believe this is true, but I am beginning to > think it might be. > > >> The day after the Times says "cold fusion is real" the skeptics will all >> say they believed it all along. Many of them will modestly take credit for >> introducing cold fusion to society, and for keeping the researchers honest. > > > If I were with a New York PR firm hired by a consortium of research > universities to provide counsel on how to respond to a congressional > inquiry on the handling of cold fusion, four years in the future, say, I > might try to spin things like this: > > "When Pons and Fleischmann first made claim of their 'results,' the least > competent in science rushed to the scene and made it very difficult to sift > wheat from chaff. No one would publish their results in reputable > journals, and the 'papers' they prepared were of such substandard quality > that they were indistinguishable from promotional literature > for homeopathic remedies and magnet motors. We did our best to bring > scientific scrutiny to bear on the multitude of claims that were being made > by any electrical engineer or computer programmer that could get ahold of > some palladium and a test tube, but they would not work with us. It was > not until 2015 that Caltech, Harwell and MIT were able to > independently piece together some of the critical details that Andrea Rossi > was unwilling to divulge that we first had any kind of scientific basis for > 'solid-phase mediated fusion,' as the field is now known. (Note that they > found a COP of 2.54 rather than 2.6, as was initially claimed.) Prior to > the very difficult experiment that Caltech, Harwell and MIT were heroically > able to carry out, solid-phase mediated fusion was the stuff of > near-threshold events recorded in the spreadsheets of hobbyists playing in > their garages. We liken the critical transition to professional science to > the transition of alchemy, in the middle ages, to chemistry, with the > systematization of the scientific method. The early tinkerers had a role > to play, obviously, but now we can look to professional scientists to carry > out a rigorous and systematic investigation and to publish quality results > in mainstream scientific journals." > > Eric > >
