Your answer is wise and cool... after digging into the horse manure of LENR history, I have some desire to be nasty and non-professional. After some studies of behavioral economics, reading Taleb, Benabou, Roubini, I rationally think this nasty instinct is simply... useful darwinian selected behavior .
I agree that terrorizing the scientists with ridicule is evil... but is it so bad to terrorize the terrorists? not for their scientific position, but for their evil insults ? Taleb explain that one reason why academics block the revolution of blackswan is because they have no incentive to accept the unthinkable, and much to stay in the official way... It is why only maverick, aliens, garage inventors, ruined people, ruined countries citizen, desperate immigrants, or people having another unrelated safe jobs or safe wealth, can innovate. If we add an incentive not to block blackswan landing, putting their comfort in danger unlike today, if they insult innovators... maybe they will simply shut up, and not follow the herd of the hunting dogs. They have the capacity to ruin careers, cast ridicule, ... ok, but it should be under the risk of ruining their own life. they are like the bankers... privatizing the glory, and socializing the failures. 2013/10/9 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > > What have been the IG Nobel around Cold fusion in history ? >> >> I've noticed the Fleischmann&Pons 91, which have disapeared from records ? >> >> then the Bockris 97 >> Louis Kervan 93 for calcium related LENR >> > > That is interesting. Is this the official list? > > http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/ > > You are saying that Fleischmann and Pons were listed for 1991? I did not > recall that. They are not on the list now. > > Ridicule has no place in science. When it comes up, I think of the 1860 > debate about evolution between Archbishop Wilberforce and T. H. Huxley. > Wilburforce ridiculed evolution and asked Huxley whether he was descended > from an ape on his grandmother's side or his grandfather's. Huxley > supposedly responded: > > "If then, said I, the question is put to me would I rather have a > miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and > possessed of great means of influence & yet who employs these faculties & > that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave > scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." > > I say "supposedly" because S. J. Gould has some doubts about what happened > and what exactly was said. It seems Huxley embellished his retort when > describing it later. > > - Jed > >
