many point : @Axil
I understand that their limited competence in lattice QM ^prevent then to find a way to explain LENR. Even competent people did not find a validated theory... only proposal... I cannot accept that facing difficulties to establish a theory, the first reaction is to deny reality to the numerous and rechecked and unchallenged evidences. @Kevin I have followed discussion whether "Moderation" is "censorship". in fact even violent moderation is not censorship, provided there are place where this moderation have different rules. Censorship happen when some opinion are forbidden in any place. In theory it can be justified because we can imagine that some opinion or expressions are false or dangerous. The proble is tha exoerience have shown than in a real system, there is frequently valid opinion or pretended dangerous ideas that are good. Freedom of speech is just modesty, accepting that censor can be wrong, not that they are always wrong. for moderation, the freedom of speech will just require there is a forum where you can publish your opinion. in the real world however there are forum with high visibility, and place with big funding, and preventing "honest" opinion to be expressed in those arena is an unfair obstacle... but as we see with cold fusion, at least ideas can survive underground. 2014-06-12 5:55 GMT+02:00 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>: > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I don't think anyone advances serious consideration of LENR by posting >> huge messages to unsympathetic forums. (Think of how well something is >> received here when someone trolls. >> > > ***Hindsight is 20/20. Someone with a scientific bent might log onto a > scienceforums.net discussion about a fascinating scientific discussion > around Metallic Hydrides, Anomalous Heat, Calorimetry, and the scientific > method. Such a person might not be aware of the "unsympathetic" nature of > the forum because it is, after all, a science forum. I went through a > similar process on Free Republic, where I had trouble believing such > intelligent people could be such strong asshole*bandwagon joiners. > > The difference is in the level of hypocrisy the founders are willing to > engage in. For instance, right here on Vortex there are some very > straightforward opening remarks about how hyperskepticism is unwelcome and > sneering is grounds for removal. But on what basis does a scientific forum > enforce against scientific topics it is "unsympathetic" towards? On > controversial topics it would be less hypocritical to just allow the fur to > fly but enforce simple rules such as are mentioned by the moderator -- no > classic logical fallacies, that kind of thing. > > Moderator: "Please also note that the use of logical fallacy is against > forum rules, so keep the appeal to authority out of it. " > > Of course, when the moderators couldn't pick a blue logical fallacy out of > a field of ldaisies when it comes to one side, then the hypocrisy factor is > what is coming into play. > >
