*Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair>: "*It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!*"
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > The lesson of Benabou model is between both your visions. > Groupthink : Collective Delusions In Organizations and Markets(Paper IOM > 2012-07 by Roland > Benabou)<http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf> > > in fact those guy are intelligent, they know they are toasted on longterm, > they know they will be toasted faster if they open their eyes. > so all their IQ is used to close their brain, their eyes. > > Intelligence and competence have nothing to do. > Subprime crisis was predictable by a junior economist, just seeing the > correlation of assets... > > LENR could be accepted as not impossible by someone with lattice QM > education...at list not impossible for just 2-body argument (maybe the best > lattice QM theorist could ruleout some LENR, but we have enough occupied to > manage semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, and they have no time to > disprove LENR)... > like you I am sure that it is not a problem of competence. > > question is if they > - made a bet that it was so improbable, that they decided to cook 2 > chemist for lunch, taking a slight risk of being wrong... but no, cannot be > wrong.... see Lewis... > - uncounsciously feel that it was so damaging for their funding, their > physicist ego, that they denied the reality, blocking any capacity of their > brain. > > that capacity to block your brain is very common > > http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf > > > delusion start after a period of rationality, when commitment, and > codependence are too huge to allow individual stepback. > > Beaudette have a different theory, it is that they lived in the unreal > worl of particle physics for too long and were not able to understand real > experiment lab work, with "shit happens", hard to replicate, unreliable... > > one exmaple of their incompetence in experimental work that shocked me, as > modest engineer, is tha they asked for IDENTICAL replication... it is > stupid, since you can also replicate artifacts... > and difficulties to replicate is never a surprise... > > hard to imagine one can be so stupid, but some professions, like judge or > physicist have a problem with reality. that is education if not > brainwashing during studies, as Thomas Kuhn describe. > > > 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > >> Hi Dave, >> >> I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions >> would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self >> interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so >> stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the >> rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face >> of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and >> both explanations of their behavior look plausible. >> >> Ed >> On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: >> >> Hello Ed, >> >> Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it >> difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. >> My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have >> stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and >> they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs >> that reported excess heat. >> >> They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the >> nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not >> have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. >> >> Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when >> LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our >> misguided prospects. >> >> Dave >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get >> (unethically) silent >> >> Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward >> LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high >> level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF >> has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the >> conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars >> and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin >> has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was >> punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is >> clear. >> >> Ed >> On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other >>> things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have >>> reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. >>> >> >> I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is >> a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is "neither small nor fleeting." >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf >> >> My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the >> signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave >> to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. >> The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It >> is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of >> input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not >> a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. >> He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent >> and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >
