You position match the position of Beaudettes. as a watcher I noticed that modern mentalities, globally and in particular in france (we have very academic education, even as top engineers), is more like what Beaudette and You describe for Nuclear Physicists. Maybe people having chemistry mind don't argue, but wait and see instead of claiming you are wrong... maybe that is a bias. What shocked me is discussing with well educated (PhD mostly, Msc eng are more neutral, or agree with caution) is that it is hard for many people to accept : - that something can be real without a theory. some prefer bad theory to justify their observations. - that something that is hard to reproduce, and often fails anyway exists. - that something useless, small, is real anyway - that reproducing an experiment with a different measurement method, is valuable reproduction and is cross check against artifact. - that claiming "it is a fraud" or "it is an artifact" against something "without a theory" is not scientific, unless you have evidences. At worst you can wait for more evidence if it is not confirmed or if there is possibilities of error or fraud... - that accusing of bias, when observing a fact, someone for the simple fact that he have previous admitted the reality of the same fact, is bad logic.
fascinating... 2014-01-28 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Good point, Eric. The attitude and training of the physicist is not suited > to explain cold fusion. The best training comes from chemistry. This > training is best because most of the effects that influences CF involves a > chemical structure. Physics only applies to the actual nuclear process, > which occurs automatically once the critical chemical conditions are > created. In addition, chemical training is more focused on reality than is > physics. As additional proof, all of the explanations provided by > physicists are in basic conflict with basic knowledge and the behavior of > LENR. They treat LENR as a game having no rules, which they feel free to > supply based only on imagination and the latest fad in physics. > > Ed Storms > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems to me there would have to be a tremendous conspiracy of chance >> for such pattern to emerge. Doesn't mean it couldn't, it just means that if >> our opinions are gambles (which of course they are), I'll take my chances >> that this pattern represents more than just a mere flook. >> > > You're being practical. This is the attitude of an engineer. The > physicist might say "junk in, junk out." The suggestion is that you could > be seeing a very alluring pattern that is an artifact of the poor > procedures you used for measuring. In a less-than-ironclad experiment, you > will have not done everything possible to rule out systematic error, so > your results cannot be built upon, even if they're suggestive. Many people > here did not have much of a problem with the approach that the > Elforsk-sponsored team took to evaluate Rossi's latest public test, with > the IR camera and so on. Ericsson and Pomp had a big problem with their > method, and it's probably largely due to their being physicists. There's a > cultural disconnect somewhere. Engineers are practical folks, and > physicists want apodictic knowledge. > > Engineers will show the way in the case of cold fusion, and then > physicists will try to explain things later on, after the fact. In fact, > one wonders whether it is wise to entrust the development of hot fusion to > physicists. > > Eric > > >
