As for 1) I think this highlight the most important aspect of the problem. It should be unquestioned as an obvious truth that experiment ultimately trumps arguments and theory.
That anyone with any respect for truth, reality or logic should argue that theory should cause experimental results to be discounted is almost inconceivable. And much like the failure for education to create curiosity and allow one to discover for ones self, I wonder if a lifetime of having to give the answer that convention accepts instead of the answer you think is correct might be largely to blame. Ultimately I think this could be the most important thing, not just in respect to results trumping theory, but all cases where truth occurs more as something Orwellian rather than logic. There is much concern that a machine that gained consciousness? would quickly gain too much power), this might be true simply because it seems to us social truth trumps actual logical truth, such a machine would have a potentially huge advantage even if it had less processing power than the human mind. John On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > There are two characteristics that eliminate the vast majority of the > population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR: > > 1) Understanding how fundamental to the veracity of scientific fact is the > distinction between experiment and argument/theory. > > 2) Being willing to look seriously at something that risks social censure > for doing so. > > Even if the presenter can resist putting forth their pet theory -- thereby > obscuring the distinction in #1 for presentees who might otherwise be > willing to look at experiments -- there isn't much you can do about either > of these characteristics. People either have what it takes or they don't > and very few do. > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One >> need to convince one at a time. Large organization mostly prepare for >> changes by providing information they think people will understand and >> therefore they will see the positive in changes to come. It fails almost >> every time. >> The reason I think you can find in what has been said here about how we >> educate people. In my opinion one should just give the basic and then >> stimulate natural curiosity. The difference is between forcing the concept >> of differential equations on someone interested in biology or have somebody >> interested in biology finding out about differential equations so he better >> can understand biology. I know my idea will not be implemented as it makes >> it hard to administrate - the policies becomes just fluff and no bureaucrat >> can enforce them. >> From having executed many changes I have learnt that the only way is by >> selling the idea to one person and then to another and select people who >> has an interest in effective organisation and to create result. Sooner or >> later (often later) you will get into the snowball effect 2 convinces 2 and >> they then convinces 2 each. It is very hard to sell the LENR concept as it >> is surrounded by unknowns. 80% of the population will not jump to new >> grounds without being sure they land on secure ground. >> I agree that when you can buy a LENR generator at Homedepot then it is >> easy. If the theory was chiseled in stone then academia could perhaps be a >> factor to help the acceptance. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> [email protected] >> +1 916 436 1899 >> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >> >> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> My mentor used to tell me: "The best things are invented by those who >>> don't know it can't be done." >>> >>> Bob Higgins >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Beside what you say, there is some common error. >>>> >>>> This is to imagine that education can help people be more rational. >>>> In fact education is there not only to give tools and informations, but >>>> also to structure the mind to accept those tools and information. >>>> This is well explaine by Thomas Kuhn as the notion of paradigm. >>>> http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html >>>> >>>> a paradigm is in a way a selective blindness designed to make you focus >>>> on "what works" in the paradigm, to avoid "losing time money and energy" >>>> looking beside. >>>> >>>> see how the skeptics battle not to prove LENR is wrong, but to save >>>> money by not searching for it... >>>> >>>> it is a specialization of intelligence. >>>> as all specialization it have it's domain of validity, and thus the >>>> domaine where it is an illusion, an error, a tragedy. >>>> >>>> this is why less educate people can, by accident, show more intelligent >>>> behavior not by their superior IQ or deep intelectual tooling, but because >>>> they have less tools, and simpler reasoning that allow them to focus on key >>>> arguments, and not be fooled by inverted clamps and missing gamma. >>>> >>>> >>>> among the skeptic I have seen a behavior which is the "black an >>>> white"... they prove something is not perfect, then conlude you can ignore >>>> it, and since nothing is perfect they can ignore all... if precision is not >>>> good, the the result is null... they don't know what is grey. it is a >>>> tactic, but also a paradigm as they think in a paradigm where thing have >>>> some given precision and they cannot think out of that... >>>> simpler people can adapt their precision and their conclusions, instead >>>> of dismiss all once the precision is below the standard. >>>> >>>> as I say, LENR will be accepted when a kid of 5 would be able to >>>> ridicule a PhD who deny reality. not before. >>>> >>> >> >
