To get back on topic, I think the primary function of guys like John Cranks has to do with a profound human tragedy:
The evolution of human eusociality. Let me explain: It is obvious to those with anything approaching critical thinking, that guys like John Cranks (with which the history of CF is generously leavened) are not arguing from a position of intellectual honesty. So what are they doing? Their function is merely to *appear* to be making an sincere argument. Now why would anyone bother with generating such an *appearance*? To appeal to those without anything approaching critical thinking. Why would anyone bother appealing to those without anything approaching critical thinking? The answer is that in high population density societies group selection pressures, sometimes overt as war and gang violence and sometimes as political use of the instruments of government, drive human evolution. In group selection, specialization emerges and, as with insects, that specialization can result in castes that are biologically incapable of independent function. Some of these castes, in human societies, are bereft of critical thinking skills and are biologically dependent on other, "intellectual" castes, for their survival in these densely populated environments. They are, however, attuned to something that functions as the human equivalent of social insect pheromone signaling -- the *appearance* of intellectual capacity. This appearance functions as a pheromone to mobilize the low-critical thinking castes to attack "foreign" elements in war or war conducted by other means aka politics. Science as we would like to think of it, open, intellectually honest independent investigation reliant on experiment over argument, emerged during the age of exploration and the opening up for settlement of low population density environments. What we are witnessing in the emergence of group-think politically dominated science is its takeover by biologically eusocial humans in the face of increasing population density. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > *Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom?* > > What are you talking about? Theory? Kim's BEC paper was published in > Naturwissenschaften, a peer reviewed journal *gasp*: > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6#page-1 > > And yes I did answer your question in your orphaned thread. FE has no > impact on the excess heat effect, because recombination is controlled for. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM, John Franks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? >> >> And, no you didn't. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mr. Franks, >>> >>> BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims >>> for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. >>> >>> I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >> >
