Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Yes John, an important part of the problem is that our school system TELL rather then encourage FIND. However, that is the fact we have to live with. There are no simple way to make people come and take a look in the telescope. There is a need to convince one person at a time and the failing to do so is rather apparent. Paul's comment above indicates that not even visiting the annual events for believers is convincing about LENR being real. There are plenty of people with trust from the general public that will support any amount of doubt. We certainly need Rossi, regardless if you like or dislike his checkered background. We need him to sell real working and economically sound E-cats. The moment he does there will be a lot of investors trying to become part of this new possibility. I do not care if it is BLP or Rossi but it certainly would make LENR easier to be recognized with a product on the market. On the positive side there are a lot of people pushing the issue. Unfortunately the pushes are poorly organized and all push-vectors are different. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +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 Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Paul Breed wrote: > That is a nice result, I personally believe that there is some N in LENR, > and that is as good a demo as any... > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > >> MFMP have been sitting on an easily replicated unambiguous experiment: >> gamma rays. >> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/follow-2/347-gamma >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Paul Breed wrote: >> >>> >>> The only way to bring people around is to have an easily replicated >>> unambiguous experiment. >>> >>> >>> The people with the most open info seem to get null results: >>> The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project.. open science with no >>> un-ambiguous positive results. >>> >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
That is a nice result, I personally believe that there is some N in LENR, and that is as good a demo as any... On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > MFMP have been sitting on an easily replicated unambiguous experiment: > gamma rays. > http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/follow-2/347-gamma > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Paul Breed wrote: > >> >> The only way to bring people around is to have an easily replicated >> unambiguous experiment. >> >> >> The people with the most open info seem to get null results: >> The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project.. open science with no un-ambiguous >> positive results. >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
MFMP have been sitting on an easily replicated unambiguous experiment: gamma rays. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/follow-2/347-gamma On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Paul Breed wrote: > > The only way to bring people around is to have an easily replicated > unambiguous experiment. > > > The people with the most open info seem to get null results: > The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project.. open science with no un-ambiguous > positive results. > > >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
To get results in a more rigorous and reliable manner, people with money and skills do need to be brought around. The Mavericks are often the only ones willing to report extraordinary results. Sometimes scientists will experiment in an area to confirm their null bias, in other words as skeptics to debunk. This has been positively been the case with several so-called scientists. Galileo had trouble getting people to look through his telescope and that persists today with any claim that seems sufficiently heretical. It seems no one can hope to explain how Rossi could be faking his results, but where are those waiting in the wings to replicate him in a more rigorous manner? If I told you that you have the world backwards and what you think you know is wrong, would you look through my Telescope? I doubt it, and once you did and if you saw things that disagreed with that you previously thought you knew would you not want others to also take a look? And how would you get others to do this without having them come around? To look despite the cognitive dissonance. Even about 50% on this list are flatly unwilling to even try such a thing out in my estimation. What percentage of respected scientists do you think are willing to even look in depth at something such as LENR or worse? And how long would they remain respected if they did? Only those with less training, more free thinking and less on the line, who do things a bit differently are likely to get or disclose results that would bring such condemnation. John On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Paul Breed wrote: > "How to bring people around", the very question sounds like a religion, > not science. > > The only way to bring people around is to have an easily replicated > unambiguous experiment. > > I've been waiting 25yrs to see such an experiment. Currently in LENR > the more credible the scientist the poorer the performance. > IE the people with good results seem to do lousy science IE: > > Rossi Known fraud shyster with report where temperatures are reported > above the melting point of parts of the device. > > The people with the most open info seem to get null results: > The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project.. open science with no un-ambiguous > positive results. > > Probably the best results to date as far as open well done science might > be the Navy in San Diego. > > I personally spent my own $ to attend ICCF-18 and I came away from that > event less confident that LENR > had potential as a viable energy source that before I attended. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) >> shows why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' >> topics including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much >> we don't know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we >> otherwise think is certain. >> >> Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: >> http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer >> >> This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with >> their identification with a certain group or system. >> >> By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all >> the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure >> should be or who it should come from... >> >> It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate >> those listening from writing something off because the thing being >> presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a >> breakthrough should come from. >> >> While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in >> a shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of >> persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking >> themseves. >> >> >> John >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
"How to bring people around", the very question sounds like a religion, not science. The only way to bring people around is to have an easily replicated unambiguous experiment. I've been waiting 25yrs to see such an experiment. Currently in LENR the more credible the scientist the poorer the performance. IE the people with good results seem to do lousy science IE: Rossi Known fraud shyster with report where temperatures are reported above the melting point of parts of the device. The people with the most open info seem to get null results: The Martin Fleishman Memorial Project.. open science with no un-ambiguous positive results. Probably the best results to date as far as open well done science might be the Navy in San Diego. I personally spent my own $ to attend ICCF-18 and I came away from that event less confident that LENR had potential as a viable energy source that before I attended. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Berry wrote: > I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) shows > why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' topics > including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much we don't > know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we > otherwise think is certain. > > Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: > http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer > > This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with > their identification with a certain group or system. > > By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all > the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure > should be or who it should come from... > > It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate > those listening from writing something off because the thing being > presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a > breakthrough should come from. > > While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in a > shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of > persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking > themseves. > > > John > >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
That is a good point. If a few of the right people with very high trust capital were to pronounce that cold fusion, or some model of the aether (by any name) was correct, there would be a large number sit up and take notice. But it must be trust and not popularity, Tom Cruise isn't making fans of his movies or him seriously consider Scientology. It might be worth changing 2 or 3 of the right minds than convincing several million regular people. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > OK John, I can see the need for salt. Lots of it. > Otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. > The motivation to act must come from an inside resource. Getting good > grades and an easy entrance to a good job is motivation with incentives > (from outside resources). > However, if a person has a genuine interest in a subject he/she will look > for tools and need only to know that the tools exist. > Our school system is trying to teach everything inclusive of how to be > logical. That creates a mindset, which makes us all more or less programmed. > Changes are inevitable in all fields and when we meet them and they do not > fit our 'program' it is best to deny them. Therefore it takes more than a > simple logical > description to make people accept changes. You have to build what I call > 'trust capital' and then if you have enough of that you can convince one > person at a time with > whom you have built that 'trust capital'. > This was of course even more pronounced at a time when science had little > or no input on daily life. I have an example ; My grand father said in the > 50-ies" A friend of his was bragging about having traveled in a car at 65 > miles per hour and enjoying the ride" - Grandpa said: "Bloody liar - nobody > can enjoy that speed for a long time". (Grandpa was fine going that speed > on a train btw.) I do not think anything could convince him that this was a > rather limiting position, except a person with a lot more trust capital > witnessing the similar experience.. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +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 6:12 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> It is a saying. >> >> Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly >> accepting something doubtful. >> >> The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough >> despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, >> much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if >> you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. >> >> Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both >> before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. >> >> There is a huge difference between being force fed information, >> regurgitating answers >> And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without >> the need to accept everything you read as final. >> >> The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first >> method. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is >>> logical. >>> As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. >>> Yes, you can >>> give the theory but that is not what we talk about. >>> >>> I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? >>> >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +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 3:53 PM, John Berry >>> wrote: >>> Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros < lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > John Berry I agree with your conclusion. > I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in > logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that > class will make logic even more unusual.. > Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the > circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to > engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two > people's right brain really helps to get informa
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
OK John, I can see the need for salt. Lots of it. Otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. The motivation to act must come from an inside resource. Getting good grades and an easy entrance to a good job is motivation with incentives (from outside resources). However, if a person has a genuine interest in a subject he/she will look for tools and need only to know that the tools exist. Our school system is trying to teach everything inclusive of how to be logical. That creates a mindset, which makes us all more or less programmed. Changes are inevitable in all fields and when we meet them and they do not fit our 'program' it is best to deny them. Therefore it takes more than a simple logical description to make people accept changes. You have to build what I call 'trust capital' and then if you have enough of that you can convince one person at a time with whom you have built that 'trust capital'. This was of course even more pronounced at a time when science had little or no input on daily life. I have an example ; My grand father said in the 50-ies" A friend of his was bragging about having traveled in a car at 65 miles per hour and enjoying the ride" - Grandpa said: "Bloody liar - nobody can enjoy that speed for a long time". (Grandpa was fine going that speed on a train btw.) I do not think anything could convince him that this was a rather limiting position, except a person with a lot more trust capital witnessing the similar experience.. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +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 6:12 PM, John Berry wrote: > It is a saying. > > Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly > accepting something doubtful. > > The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough > despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, > much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if > you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. > > Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both before > and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. > > There is a huge difference between being force fed information, > regurgitating answers > And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without the > need to accept everything you read as final. > > The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first > method. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros > wrote: > >> Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is >> logical. >> As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. >> Yes, you can >> give the theory but that is not what we talk about. >> >> I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? >> >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +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 3:53 PM, John Berry >> wrote: >> >>> Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical >>> people to help make a logical improvement in logic. >>> >>> Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy >>> and control logic, then I agree. >>> Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. >>> >>> John. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros >> > wrote: >>> John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity i
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
It is a saying. Taking things with a pinch of salt is often needed to avoid blindly accepting something doubtful. The block of salt is needed because if you are going to make breakthrough despite reading old information you are going to need to use a lot of salt, much of that information will need to be incorrect, incomplete or wrong if you are going to make a breakthrough, see a new paradigm. Additionally I think that reading a little and thinking a lot, both before and after to avoid simply becoming 'programmed'. There is a huge difference between being force fed information, regurgitating answers And reading a book based on your own interest with no test and without the need to accept everything you read as final. The latter will make more discoverers (and discoveries) than the first method. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is > logical. > As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. > Yes, you can > give the theory but that is not what we talk about. > > I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +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 3:53 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical >> people to help make a logical improvement in logic. >> >> Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and >> control logic, then I agree. >> Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. >> >> John. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros >> wrote: >> >>> John Berry I agree with your conclusion. >>> I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in logic >>> at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that class will >>> make logic even more unusual.. >>> Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. >>> However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves >>> of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain >>> really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most >>> other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to >>> catch. >>> Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is >>> real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). >>> Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on >>> their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when >>> the first generator is available. >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +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 2:20 PM, John Berry >>> wrote: >>> Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not su
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
That is a tricky one indeed, though it is not logical proof, it is often logical to accept an argument because of the consequences IF the answer can not be otherwise established. Global warming falls into this category, that is maybe a lack of unambiguous evidence to reach a final 100% conclusion that CO2 from cars is causing problematic global warming. But the consequence of taking action that is not needed is minor compared to the consequence of not taking action that was needed. Actually I think the evidence is pretty solid and little is 100%, so this does not reflect my opinion.. In the same way the consequence of ignoring an extraordinary claim can sometimes be great enough that it becomes an argument for investigation despite contradictory beliefs or doubts. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > John Berry wrote: > > Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. >> > > Maybe it is not so depressing. The human race has always been this way, > and I suppose it will remain this way, yet we have made great progress in > the past. Maybe we can get along okay with only a small number of logical > people who do science. After all, we don't need many people capable of > composing music, acting in movies or programming computers. Why should we > need lots more scientists? It is a specialized profession. > > As long as the opposition to science is kept under control, I don't see a > problem with it being a elite occupation, that attracts only a small number > of people. > > A society composed mainly of logical people and scientists would be boring. > > > >> On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of >> people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) >> then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority >> actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular >> belief might be. >> > > It is not clear to me this would be a big improvement. It would probably > increase funding for research, because more people would be sympathetic, > instead of thinking science comes from "the pit of hell." But it is not > clear to me that the world needs lots more logical thinking. Maybe just > less emotional thinking, and more self-centered but enlightened > self-interest type thinking. > > > >> But I never had any training in logic . . . >> > > You probably have more exposure than you realize. People who gravitate to > logic learn about it from examples in science, engineering, math and other > fields, even if they do not study it explicitly. Experiments soon teach the > folly of wishful thinking, for example. So does agriculture, but the link > between logic and the task at hand may be more clearly delineated in > technical disciplines such as experimental science or programming. > > > >> , so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose >> to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). >> > > I doubt that people reject it. Most of them are never exposed to it in the > first place. Try explaining to someone why it is a fallacy to appeal to the > consequences of a belief: > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html > > You will see that in most cases, the thought that this might be invalid > never crossed their mind. They will not be able to grasp what is wrong with > it. This error may be even more common than ad hominem. You will find it > everywhere, including New York Time op ed columns by distinguished > politicians, businessmen, opinion makers and especially people who have > appointed themselves in charge of the Public's Morality and Virtue, such as > William J. Bennett. > > This particular fallacy closely resembles a true, logical assertion, which > may be why so many people fall for it. I think most people have to be > taught this kind of subtle distinction step by step. This fallacy in one > form is: > > "X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there > would be negative consequences." > > Take the example of a town in which the crime rate is low because everyone > thinks the police always catch criminals, whereas in fact the police seldom > catch them. It is better if everyone (especially crooks!) mistakenly > believes "our police are effective." > > Replace "X is true . . ." with: > > "It is better for society if people believe X is true . . ." ". . . > because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be > negative consequences." > > OR (in one formulation): > > "Sometimes delusions make things go better." > > Put that way, this is not an idea the New York Times wants in an op-ed, > and it would go over like a lead balloon in a sermon, but this is the > logical expression of the core idea. > > It is said that an elderly Victorian woman when she first heard of > Darwin's theory expressed the logical version succinctly: "Let us hope that > is not true, or if it is true, that it
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Yes, I am sure it is logical. Not everything that sounds logical is logical. As a matter of fact I think you have to find logic. You cannot teach it. Yes, you can give the theory but that is not what we talk about. I haven't heard your salt and books idea. Why the salt? Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +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 3:53 PM, John Berry wrote: > Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical > people to help make a logical improvement in logic. > > Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and > control logic, then I agree. > Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. > > John. > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros > wrote: > >> John Berry I agree with your conclusion. >> I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in logic >> at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that class will >> make logic even more unusual.. >> Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. >> However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves >> of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain >> really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most >> other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to >> catch. >> Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. >> A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). >> Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on their >> own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the >> first generator is available. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +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 2:20 PM, John Berry >> wrote: >> >>> Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. >>> >>> On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of >>> people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) >>> then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority >>> actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular >>> belief might be. >>> >>> But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something >>> that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as >>> our right brain often wins out). >>> >>> But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. >>> >>> INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are >>> perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. >>> Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients >>> to invent logic independently. >>> >>> Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't >>> obvious enough. >>> >>> Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis >>> and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the >>> needed agreement. >>> >>> Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of >>> Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his >>> work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, >>> would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). >>> Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. >>> >>> I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking >>> people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for >>> that moral concern to be valid. >>> >>> If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, >>> except as you say, going fishing. >>> Let those bright enough join in if they will. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry wrote: Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. > Maybe it is not so depressing. The human race has always been this way, and I suppose it will remain this way, yet we have made great progress in the past. Maybe we can get along okay with only a small number of logical people who do science. After all, we don't need many people capable of composing music, acting in movies or programming computers. Why should we need lots more scientists? It is a specialized profession. As long as the opposition to science is kept under control, I don't see a problem with it being a elite occupation, that attracts only a small number of people. A society composed mainly of logical people and scientists would be boring. > On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of > people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) > then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority > actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular > belief might be. > It is not clear to me this would be a big improvement. It would probably increase funding for research, because more people would be sympathetic, instead of thinking science comes from "the pit of hell." But it is not clear to me that the world needs lots more logical thinking. Maybe just less emotional thinking, and more self-centered but enlightened self-interest type thinking. > But I never had any training in logic . . . > You probably have more exposure than you realize. People who gravitate to logic learn about it from examples in science, engineering, math and other fields, even if they do not study it explicitly. Experiments soon teach the folly of wishful thinking, for example. So does agriculture, but the link between logic and the task at hand may be more clearly delineated in technical disciplines such as experimental science or programming. > , so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose > to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). > I doubt that people reject it. Most of them are never exposed to it in the first place. Try explaining to someone why it is a fallacy to appeal to the consequences of a belief: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html You will see that in most cases, the thought that this might be invalid never crossed their mind. They will not be able to grasp what is wrong with it. This error may be even more common than ad hominem. You will find it everywhere, including New York Time op ed columns by distinguished politicians, businessmen, opinion makers and especially people who have appointed themselves in charge of the Public's Morality and Virtue, such as William J. Bennett. This particular fallacy closely resembles a true, logical assertion, which may be why so many people fall for it. I think most people have to be taught this kind of subtle distinction step by step. This fallacy in one form is: "X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences." Take the example of a town in which the crime rate is low because everyone thinks the police always catch criminals, whereas in fact the police seldom catch them. It is better if everyone (especially crooks!) mistakenly believes "our police are effective." Replace "X is true . . ." with: "It is better for society if people believe X is true . . ." ". . . because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences." OR (in one formulation): "Sometimes delusions make things go better." Put that way, this is not an idea the New York Times wants in an op-ed, and it would go over like a lead balloon in a sermon, but this is the logical expression of the core idea. It is said that an elderly Victorian woman when she first heard of Darwin's theory expressed the logical version succinctly: "Let us hope that is not true, or if it is true, that it does not become generally known." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Well I guess the class in logic I was imagining was created by logical people to help make a logical improvement in logic. Of course if it is created by illogical and corrupt people to destroy and control logic, then I agree. Overall the best schooling is a brick of salt a a ton of books. John. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > John Berry I agree with your conclusion. > I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in logic at > school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that class will > make logic even more unusual.. > Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. > However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves > of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain > really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most > other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to > catch. > Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. > A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). > Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on their > own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the > first generator is available. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +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 2:20 PM, John Berry > wrote: > >> Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. >> >> On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of >> people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) >> then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority >> actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular >> belief might be. >> >> But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that >> most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our >> right brain often wins out). >> >> But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. >> >> INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are >> perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. >> Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients >> to invent logic independently. >> >> Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't >> obvious enough. >> >> Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and >> psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed >> agreement. >> >> Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of >> Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his >> work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, >> would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). >> Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. >> >> I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking >> people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for >> that moral concern to be valid. >> >> If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except >> as you say, going fishing. >> Let those bright enough join in if they will. >> >> John >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry I agree with your conclusion. I do not agree with that "Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough." On the contrary that class will make logic even more unusual.. Maybe that Milton H. Erickson did wrong I do not know the circumstances. However, I know that to persuade anyone else you need to engage both halves of the brain and somehow a connection between two people's right brain really helps to get information over. Yes, it can be misused (like most other powers). Sometimes this connection is called trust and it is hard to catch. Today there is a very slim chance to convince somebody that LENR is real. A lot of the trusted say the opposite (most of the academia). Not only is the best 'medicine' to let them "bright enough join" on their own terms, it is also best for LENR. The table will turn quickly when the first generator is available. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +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 2:20 PM, John Berry wrote: > Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. > > On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of > people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) > then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority > actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular > belief might be. > > But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that > most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our > right brain often wins out). > > But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. > > INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are > perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. > Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients > to invent logic independently. > > Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't > obvious enough. > > Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and > psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed > agreement. > > Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of > Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his > work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, > would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). > Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. > > I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking > people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for > that moral concern to be valid. > > If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except > as you say, going fishing. > Let those bright enough join in if they will. > > John > >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Jed, you sure can write a thoroughly depressing post. On the plus side if the world we have now is the result of a minority of people being logical (jokes about women vastly underestimate the problem) then it does give me hope for how great a society where the vast majority actually grasps logic and truth and holds it above whatever the popular belief might be. But I never had any training in logic, so I assumed it was something that most people naturally had but chose to reject (which we can all do as our right brain often wins out). But I guess that my logic came inbuilt as part of my being an INTJ. INTJ's have the highest IQ of any of the 16 Myers Briggs types, so are perhaps more likely to generate their own logic without any education. Introversion, intuition, thinking and judging sounds like the ingredients to invent logic independently. Seems like there should be a class in logic at school then if it isn't obvious enough. Increasingly emotional arguments, persuasion, conversational hypnosis and psychological pressure are looking like justifiable tools to get the needed agreement. Pioneer hypnotist Dr. Milton H. Erickson once won over a number of Doctors/Professors who had visited him with the intent of disallowing his work in some respect (I forget the details and I can't find a reference, would be in respect to psychology or psychiatry). Of course he used conversational hypnosis to reverse their intention. I would normally have considered it wrong to persuade right thinking people this way, but increasingly I am not sure they are common enough for that moral concern to be valid. If logic can't work, then I am unsure there are any other options, except as you say, going fishing. Let those bright enough join in if they will. John
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry wrote: 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. > It seems inconceivable to people who have been trained in the experimental scientific method from a young age. But you should realize this is still a new and fragile idea, and most people have no scientific training. That is why, for example, 60% of Americans think that "lasers work by focusing sound waves" (NSF survey described below). People have been doing science for hundreds of thousands of years, but as a formal, written, organized practice, it only began in 1600. It was first articulated by Francis Bacon in his book Novum Organum (written in Latin). He did a better job describing the scientific method than the working scientists who came a generation later did, such as Newton. Newton's ideas about the scientific method were retrograde in many ways. Many of the ideas in Bacon's books are still alien to most people. We are still far from fulfilling his goals for society, and benefitting from the scientific method. It is a myth that modern society is science-based. Only a small fraction of the people in a first-world country have knowledge of science. Most are opposed to it because it conflicts with traditional beliefs, especially religion. I have often quoted H. G. Wells on this. What he wrote in 1913 is as true today as it was then. In his novel, a person in 1950 is looking back at 1913: "It is wonderful how our fathers bore themselves towards science. They hated it. They feared it. They permitted a few scientific men to exist and work -- a pitiful handful 'Don't find out anything about us,' they said to them; 'don't inflict vision upon us, spare our little ways of life from the fearful shaft of understanding. But do tricks for us, little limited tricks. Give us cheap lighting. And cure us of certain disagreeable things, cure us of cancer, cure us of consumption, cure our colds and relieve us after repletion'" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1059/1059-h/1059-h.htm Most people also have no training in basic logic. Without that, you cannot proceed to the scientific method. They have no idea they are making logical fallacies, even though these fallacies were compiled thousands of year ago: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ These fallacies are as common today in newspapers, magazines, or in comments on the Internet as they were the Romans invented names for them. People did not understood logic in the past. It isn't as if there was some golden age when they were educated. Such knowledge does not come naturally, any more that ability to do algebra or calculus does for most people. Science is supported by governments with billions of dollars despite the fact that much of the population despises it. This is because science is needed to make weapons, and to compete economically. No government is actually in favor of science for its own right, although leaders often pay lip service to that concept. The GOP will continue to fund the Pentagon and the CDC even though its base and many GOP elected officials from places like Georgia loath science, saying things like: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." Most people in most countries do not care about facts, or science, or learning. They find it boring. They are interested in their own personal lives and immediate concerns. This has always been the case. It was true 100 years ago and 200 years ago. It is the case in Japan just as much in U.S. Public opinion polls show that ~20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth: http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx As I mentioned, 60% think that "lasers work by focusing sound waves." People in Japan are just about as ignorant: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/append/c7/at07-10.pdf The only major difference between the countries in this public opinion survey is in questions related to religious beliefs, especially evolution: "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals." Many Americans, Koreans and Russians disagree on religious grounds so ~65% say "no." There happens to be no religious opposition to evolution in Japan, so only only 22% say no. They are merely ignorant, not opposed. Japan has a reputation for being a high-tech, highly educated society. I have not found it so. Based on the mass media, I have the impression that most people in Japan are not interested in science, and they know little about it. Government ministers and corporate muckety-mucks reject cold fusion for the same reasons American authorities do.
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
>who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Which of course makes them not new, I didn't know Machiavelli had such a good sense of humor, I guess he saw some advantage in it. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Lennart Thornros wrote: > > In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One >> need to convince one at a time. >> > > Yes. For the reasons described by James Bowery: because human nature and > education prevent "the vast majority of the population from any possibility > of recognizing the reality of LENR . . ." Finding supporters is like like > looking for a needle in a haystack. That is the way it has always been, and > probably always will be. There is no point to complaining about it, or > wishing it were otherwise. We have to take people as they are. We have > start with society as it is and change the trajectory of things a little. > > As Margaret Mead put it: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, > committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that > ever has." > > Because potential supporters are few and far between, there is no point to > going out and proselytizing to individuals, or writing letters. You have > make the information available on the Internet and then hope that people > will read what you have to say instead of reading Wikipedia or the *Scientific > American*. A few people will. People download 4,000 to 8,000 papers a > week from LENR-CANR.org, depending on the time of year and the academic > schedule at universities. > > I tend to see this problem as rooted in our primate nature. We are afraid > of novelty, for good reason. Machiavelli described the problem in terms of > society (which is another way of looking what I call "primate nature"): > > "It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in > hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to > take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the > innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old > conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. > This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws > on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily > believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
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 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 > 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 >> lenn...@thornros.com >> +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 >> 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 >>> 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, sho
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Lennart Thornros wrote: In my experience the 'truth' about LENR cannot be told to any group. One > need to convince one at a time. > Yes. For the reasons described by James Bowery: because human nature and education prevent "the vast majority of the population from any possibility of recognizing the reality of LENR . . ." Finding supporters is like like looking for a needle in a haystack. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be. There is no point to complaining about it, or wishing it were otherwise. We have to take people as they are. We have start with society as it is and change the trajectory of things a little. As Margaret Mead put it: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Because potential supporters are few and far between, there is no point to going out and proselytizing to individuals, or writing letters. You have make the information available on the Internet and then hope that people will read what you have to say instead of reading Wikipedia or the *Scientific American*. A few people will. People download 4,000 to 8,000 papers a week from LENR-CANR.org, depending on the time of year and the academic schedule at universities. I tend to see this problem as rooted in our primate nature. We are afraid of novelty, for good reason. Machiavelli described the problem in terms of society (which is another way of looking what I call "primate nature"): "It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
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 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 > lenn...@thornros.com > +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 > 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 >> 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. >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
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 lenn...@thornros.com +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 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 > 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. >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
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 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. >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
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. 2014-11-22 23:07 GMT+01:00 John Berry : > Most relivant quotes from the article: > > “People have been conditioned by 40 years of cultural programming to have > an aversion to cannabis (cold fusion/aether etc...).* It doesn’t really > matter what sort of evidence is presented*, most people simply react > emotionally to the claim rather than rationally evaluating the evidence for > it. People confuse the ideal of science with how science actually operates > in the real world, and then working from that assumption they *assume > this issue would have been conclusively proven and endorsed by the > establishment if it were true.* Unfortunately this is an overly > simplistic understanding of how the system works” said Dr Lucifero. > > “Even amongst educated people the issue is still controversial. Research > has shown over and over that a person's opinion on a scientific issue, > whether it be evolution or climate change or what have you, has more to do > with their political identification than it does with their level of > scientific literacy. This is equally true for those who have the highest > level of scientific literacy in our society as it is for those who have the > lowest” he explained. > > “When it all comes down to it, this isn’t a scientific issue, it’s a > political issue. “ > > Sound familiar? > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, John Berry > wrote: > >> I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) >> shows why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' >> topics including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much >> we don't know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we >> otherwise think is certain. >> >> Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: >> http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer >> >> This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with >> their identification with a certain group or system. >> >> By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all >> the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure >> should be or who it should come from... >> >> It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate >> those listening from writing something off because the thing being >> presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a >> breakthrough should come from. >> >> While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in >> a shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of >> persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking >> themseves. >> >> >> John >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Jed, you have said that before but it still floors me, as you say this is stuff kids should know. I read recently that Pi was almost changed to 3.2 by law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill But by comparison to what you mention, that is high level stuff really. It makes me wonder though what other gaps may exist in the psychological and educational makeup of some people in powerful positions. Some golden rules might be missing perhaps. John
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
John Berry wrote: > “Even amongst educated people the issue is still controversial. Research > has shown over and over that a person's opinion on a scientific issue, > whether it be evolution or climate change or what have you, has more to do > with their political identification than it does with their level of > scientific literacy. This is equally true for those who have the highest > level of scientific literacy in our society as it is for those who have the > lowest” he explained. > Perhaps that is true. I wouldn't know. However, it only applies to politicized subject such as evolution, climate change or cold fusion. When it comes to uncontroversial science, people with more scientific literacy have more solid opinions even about subjects they have not studied. They got a lot more out of the Scientific American than people without scientific literacy. For the same reason a farmer in Michigan will know a lot about how to grow a crop he has never grown, and cannot grow, such as a tropical fruit. That may sound like a truism but it has consequences you may not have thought about. Members of Congress on science committees often have no scientific background at all -- not even at the high school level. Or if they had any, they have forgotten it. The extent to which they misunderstand science, and the depths of their ignorance, is difficult for a scientifically literate person to grasp. Talking to such people can be a shock. It is like talking to someone from the Middle Ages. They have no clue about things like lightning, buoyancy (why ships made from steel do not sink), weather fronts, the fact that insects do not have lungs, and a thousand other subjects that people like me learn as children. They lack curiosity. They may not even realize that anyone knows or cares anything about insect respiration, or that it might be different from animal respiration. Ignorance gives a person an oversimplified view of nature. It makes people think they know more than they do. The assume the answers must be simple. The more you learn, the more you realize how ignorant you are. You may think you have shared knowledge with other members of society, and a commonly agreed set of facts. That is not the case now and it never was. High school education was more rigorous in the U.S. before 1950, so we get the impression that people were more educated and overall standards were higher. That was not the case. Most people did not finish high school. See: http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/research/graduation_rates.php - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to bring people around...
Most relivant quotes from the article: “People have been conditioned by 40 years of cultural programming to have an aversion to cannabis (cold fusion/aether etc...).* It doesn’t really matter what sort of evidence is presented*, most people simply react emotionally to the claim rather than rationally evaluating the evidence for it. People confuse the ideal of science with how science actually operates in the real world, and then working from that assumption they *assume this issue would have been conclusively proven and endorsed by the establishment if it were true.* Unfortunately this is an overly simplistic understanding of how the system works” said Dr Lucifero. “Even amongst educated people the issue is still controversial. Research has shown over and over that a person's opinion on a scientific issue, whether it be evolution or climate change or what have you, has more to do with their political identification than it does with their level of scientific literacy. This is equally true for those who have the highest level of scientific literacy in our society as it is for those who have the lowest” he explained. “When it all comes down to it, this isn’t a scientific issue, it’s a political issue. “ Sound familiar? On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, John Berry wrote: > I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) shows > why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' topics > including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much we don't > know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we > otherwise think is certain. > > Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: > http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer > > This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with > their identification with a certain group or system. > > By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all > the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure > should be or who it should come from... > > It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate > those listening from writing something off because the thing being > presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a > breakthrough should come from. > > While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in a > shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of > persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking > themseves. > > > John > >
[Vo]:How to bring people around...
I think the video I shared previously ( http://vimeo.com/22956103 ) shows why there should be a lot less close-mindedness around 'fringe' topics including aetheric and so-called LENR research as there is so much we don't know we can't know what all that unknown does to influence what we otherwise think is certain. Well if I was presenting something, I would also make mention of this: http://moosecleans.ca/content/scientists-prove-nobody-cares-cannabis-cures-cancer This proves that peoples beliefs follow along with their world view, with their identification with a certain group or system. By exposing people to the fact that we allow people to die of cancer all the time because the cure does not fit our collective notion of what a cure should be or who it should come from... It helps expose the truth and yet to a degree (temporarily) inoculate those listening from writing something off because the thing being presented comes with a shot of cognitive dissonance about who and where a breakthrough should come from. While the best way to change peoples minds is with undeniable buy one in a shop near you proof, until then it would help to become masters of persuasion, persuasion not to trick, but to stop people from tricking themseves. John
