RE: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
From Abd: ... With that out of the way, I hope you will take the following link in the humor that it was intended, particularly a famous quote (which consists of seven words) which the science fiction author, John Scalzi, hijacked for his own purpose. See Mr. Scalzi's blog: http://tinyurl.com/yh9ak8qhttp://tinyurl.com/yh9ak8q I did not find anything resembling the description there, and I didn't feel like looking at all combinations of seven words! The answer to this riddle can be found at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon Scroll down to the bottom and read the quote attributed to Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. So let me quote my own piece, from Mark Twain: I would have written less, but I didn't have time. I would be a fool to try to top MT. He was the master. A century ahead his time. BTW, Birtukan sounds like a smart young lady. No wonder you're proud of her! I predict women will be ruling the world in another century. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Scroll down to the bottom and read the quote attributed to Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. Another damned thick book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh, Mr. Gibbon?
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:19 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: [snip his thoughtful essay on the ethics of journalism and our behavior on vortex-l] Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Thank you Steven for your informative and salving post. Discussion of list behavior and its impact on the list it seems to me is always on topic, especially when things go off the deep end. When that happens I think everyone shares to some degree in the responsibility, even if only through inaction, and the loss. I would like note there was an appeal to the rules By Steve Krivit. For that reason maybe it is appropriate to simply post the rules set down by the moderator, Bill Beaty, and located at: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html Notice especially the sneering rule! Sneering might be easily dismissed as undetectable and thus the rule unenforceable, but snearing is readily detected by the collective consciousness of those on this list, and the moderator in particular! Begin quote of Bill Beaty's material: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - William J. Beaty 6632 Corson Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 206-543-6195 USA Vortex-L Rules: 1. $10/yr donation 2. NO SNEERING 3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 40K 4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY 5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS 6. NO SPAMMING 1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses. If you cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway. If you would like to give more, please do! Direct your check to the moderator, address above. 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! MORE (please read.) [appended below] (For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY at http://amasci.com/pathskep.html) 3. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now, those exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty. Some members are on limited service, or have to pay for received email. Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John Logajan and posted on our webpages for viewing. 4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the ENTIRE message in your reply. Always edit it a bit and delete something. The entire message should only be included if: (A) you are replying to a message that is many days old, or (B) you are doing a point-by-point reply to many parts of a message. Many vortex users must pay by the kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large amounts of redundant messages are irritating and expensive. So, when including a quoted message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE SOMETHING, the more the better. 5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC line of your messages to vortex-L. In the past this has caused storms of thread leakage between lists and redundant messages as replies from subscribers go to both lists. It's OK to manually forward mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC line has only vortex-L and no other list. 6. Junkmail email advertising will not be tolerated. While not illegal yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams vortex-L with junkmail will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;) Occasional on-topic advertising by long-time vortex-L users is acceptable. - Bill B. THE VORTEX-L DISCUSSION GROUP To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for true believers. Skeptics are tolerated but not welcomed. For yet another definition of the two types of people, see the excellent article in a recent issue of SKEPTIC, V5 #2, Skepticism and Credulity: finding the balance between Type I and Type II errors by B. Wisdom. The article discusses the philosophy behind two types of mental attitude: 1. 'Scoffers:' those who, in order to reject all falsehoods, don't mind accidentally rejecting truths. 2. 'Believers:' those who, in order to accept all truths, don't mind accidentally accepting falsehoods. A few people fall between these two descriptions. However, there is significant polarization as well: whose who are solidly in one camp or the other greatly outnumber those who succeed in remaining between the two. I have observed that
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
At 04:19 PM 3/27/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: It was recently opined here that it is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. This was followed up with another opinion: That the job of a reporter is to find and present facts that science reporters should find and present scientific fact. It's tricky. Facts challenge dogma. Or confirm it. A science reporter should report discovered fact whether it challenges dogma or not, according to the interests of the market, the audience for the reporter. The market for honest reporters is those who will rely upon the reports, so it's very important that the reporter be neutral. And that can be difficult. Nevertheless, this is the task of a journalist. Personally, I think challenging dogma IS one of the many jobs that an investigative journalist performs. Only in the way I've described. When the reporter becomes attached to some alternate dogma, -- which might simply be the reporter's own opinion, informed or otherwise -- it is not the job of the reporter to promote that alternative to challenge dogma. The reporter has become the story, has lost neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that the report abandons personal conclusions. It does not mean ignoring the obvious. But it does mean allowing the reader to discriminate, to present to the reader the sources for the journalist's opinion, in balance. Balance means that if sources of similar probity exist that support the other side (than the reporter's opinion), the reporter will present those as well. Strong personal bias on the part of the reporter can cause a failure of the reporter to even notice the other sources; the same traps that cause anyone to become biased can happen to a reporter. Actually, I would like to believe it's the job of everyone to challenge dogma whenever they see it. Of course, one person's perception of fact often turns out to be another person's perception of dogma, and, oh, what a squabble that can produce betwixt us all. It's not as difficult as it seems. Attribution and fidelity to source can work miracles. Krivit, the unfortunate occasion for this discussion, reports his opinion and his interpretations as fact, and loses attribution. Obviously, the topic of whether or not fusion is taking place is a controversial one, with controversy even among experts professionally qualified to judge. Because Krivit lost his balance, he misrepresents what the fusion camp believes and reports, and he misrepresents the evidence. And that's been shown, I believe, clearly. It has nothing to do with dogma. If he were doing the same thing on the fusion side, I'd be similarly offended. I have made statements about Widom-Larsen theory that may be incorrect, I may have erred in presenting it. But I do not present myself as an expert, and I'm largely depending on Krivit's statements about it. I depend on others here to find and correct my errors. I'd say that, in a year, I've become somewhat familiar with this field, and part of how I've done that is by sticking my foot in my mouth, and saying what I think, it is one of the fastest ways to learn. I need to be corrected when I make mistakes. I have lots of questions about Widom-Larsen theory, and if fusion is the dogma -- and I'll say that it is now, among the workers in the field, an accepted theory as an explanation for excess heat, without being specific about the exact fusion mechanism -- then is W-L theory a challenge to the dogma? Part of the problem with Krivit is that he places W-L theory in opposition to some fusion theory, but all his presentation of the fusion theory is of straight deuterium, two deuteron, fusion, which then sets up a straw man that is easy to knock down with all the arguments of 1989. However, the 1989 rejection, we are now confident, was premature. If it is possible that there are other nuclear explanations than straight deuterium fusion, then it is also possible that there is some as-yet-not-understood mechanism that might allow straight deuterium fusion. Such as, say, a quantum mechanical phenomenon that distributes the energy of a reaction across a crystal, similar to the Mossbauer effect. Don't mistake this for a proposed theory of mine! It's just an example, which can be shot down, as can just about every theory, if we assume that we understand well what happens in the condensed matter environment. Turns out that we don't. But it would indeed be Krivit's job to present W-L theory, so that we understand it. And, remarkably, he does not seem to be doing that. Instead, he's impeaching the character and probity of the bulk of the cold fusion research establishment. He's attacking the alleged dogmatists, not the dogma, and he shouldn't even attack the dogma. At least not as a reporter who would have a right to be trusted when he reports on what we don't know! Investigative reporting is a difficult
RE: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
Hi Abd, I read the entire contents of your reply. Dyslexia or not, it was the least I could do. Within the content of your lengthy reply I perceived points being made here and there that deserve attention. Nevertheless, I feel no urgent need to respond. I've already said my piece. I've noticed that you occasionally respond to some of my posts. Hopefully, most posters feel honored and occasionally even validated when others feel compelled to respond to their posts. Nevertheless, I've noticed that on occasion some of your posts seem to possess an order of magnitude more prose than what I initially produced. Keep in mind that dyslexia means reading can be a chore, and trying to write (or respond) intelligently even more so. I know I should probably feel honored that you feel compelled to be as detailed as you feel you need to be. With that out of the way, I hope you will take the following link in the humor that it was intended, particularly a famous quote (which consists of seven words) which the science fiction author, John Scalzi, hijacked for his own purpose. See Mr. Scalzi's blog: http://tinyurl.com/yh9ak8q BTW, I think John Scalzi is a rare and gifted writer. I would recommend his works, like Old Man's War to be required reading for all college level students who are interested in pursuing the craft of writing. Scalzi's work tackles some interesting ethical questions. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
Hello Abd, I feel your heartful spirit in this sharing, and enjoy a sense of knowing you as you are. Shared collaborative exploration of ever more mysterious and subtle details inevitably leads to discovery-experience of single infinite unity. Rich - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma At 04:19 PM 3/27/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: It was recently opined here that it is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. This was followed up with another opinion: That the job of a reporter is to find and present facts - that science reporters should find and present scientific fact. It's tricky. Facts challenge dogma. Or confirm it. A science reporter should report discovered fact whether it challenges dogma or not, according to the interests of the market, the audience for the reporter. The market for honest reporters is those who will rely upon the reports, so it's very important that the reporter be neutral. And that can be difficult. Nevertheless, this is the task of a journalist. Personally, I think challenging dogma IS one of the many jobs that an investigative journalist performs. Only in the way I've described. When the reporter becomes attached to some alternate dogma, -- which might simply be the reporter's own opinion, informed or otherwise -- it is not the job of the reporter to promote that alternative to challenge dogma. The reporter has become the story, has lost neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that the report abandons personal conclusions. It does not mean ignoring the obvious. But it does mean allowing the reader to discriminate, to present to the reader the sources for the journalist's opinion, in balance. Balance means that if sources of similar probity exist that support the other side (than the reporter's opinion), the reporter will present those as well. Strong personal bias on the part of the reporter can cause a failure of the reporter to even notice the other sources; the same traps that cause anyone to become biased can happen to a reporter. .
RE: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
At 08:47 PM 3/28/2010, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I've noticed that you occasionally respond to some of my posts. Hopefully, most posters feel honored and occasionally even validated when others feel compelled to respond to their posts. Nevertheless, I've noticed that on occasion some of your posts seem to possess an order of magnitude more prose than what I initially produced. Yes. This is because I am not responding simply to you. Rather, I am using your ideas, questions, proposals, or whatever, to stimulate my own thinking about the topic. You have no obligation to read it, at all. Read it if it serves you, don't if it doesn't. If I write something really important, someone else will echo it, hopefully more succinctly, the part that is important. Keep in mind that dyslexia means reading can be a chore, and trying to write (or respond) intelligently even more so. I know I should probably feel honored that you feel compelled to be as detailed as you feel you need to be. Well, unfortunately, not. Not simply from the fact that I respond, or respond at length. I'm generally communicating with the entire list, or, more accurately, to the subset of those who prefer to read my writing, for their own reasons. With that out of the way, I hope you will take the following link in the humor that it was intended, particularly a famous quote (which consists of seven words) which the science fiction author, John Scalzi, hijacked for his own purpose. See Mr. Scalzi's blog: http://tinyurl.com/yh9ak8qhttp://tinyurl.com/yh9ak8q I did not find anything resembling the description there, and I didn't feel like looking at all combinations of seven words! So let me quote my own piece, from Mark Twain: I would have written less, but I didn't have time. Don't from this, assume that I don't take a lot of time to write, I spend way too much time, in fact, but less would not be more, it would be less. I'd have to do rewrite to give more with less, and it's just not possible, as Mark Twain wrote. The other factor is that I learn by writing. Sometimes I do research. It can be *very* time-consuming. I share the process. So if you look back, you can see the evolution of my ideas, if you care. It's all there. You can see, on this list, my first questions about Takahashi's TSC theory, which I truly did not understand. Unfortunately, I think nobody else commenting did, either! No blame, it took me a long time of pouring over his papers to find the information that at least partially corrected my misunderstandings. He is not predicting 23.8 MeV alpha particles at all!
[Vo]:OT (sort of): Challenging Dogma
It was recently opined here that it is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. This was followed up with another opinion: That the job of a reporter is to find and present facts - that science reporters should find and present scientific fact. Personally, I think challenging dogma IS one of the many jobs that an investigative journalist performs. Actually, I would like to believe it's the job of everyone to challenge dogma whenever they see it. Of course, one person's perception of fact often turns out to be another person's perception of dogma, and, oh, what a squabble that can produce betwixt us all. Regarding journalism, the Society of Professional Journalism (the SPJ) has a lot of interesting things to say about the code of ethics that investigative journalists should follow. For details see: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp While on the subject of the ethics of investigative journalism, and for a more controversial debate concerning the limits of Cotcha investigative journalism, here is an article about a former ABC producer, Linne Dale, who performed an undercover investigation of a company called Food Lion, and the company's illegal practices which were endangering public health. The ABC article when it eventually aired helped destroy the company, but not after a protracted and expensive battle spearheaded, of course, by Food Lion's legal team. The doomed company attempted to obfuscate and deflect the original ABC claims by claiming fraud, trespassing and breach of loyalty. Most curiously, they did not pursue libel. Fortunately, for the sake media freedom, Food Lion's tactic didn't work: http://rsjsoup.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-ethics-of-investigative But getting back to the SPJ web site, a lot of sensible things are listed out there. Good sensible things that every investigative journalist ought to ponder carefully before practicing their trade. Incidentally, while pondering the dos and don'ts of investigative journalism nowhere did I read a commandment stating that those who pursue this profession should not challenge dogma. Actually challenging dogma, isn't what really piqued my interest. What piqued my interest was wondering if anyone here really believes they have the right to determine for everyone else what dogma is versus what is scientific fact. It seems to me that the polarity of perception, when placed on a scale where dogma resides at one end and scientific fact the other, often boils down to a difference of opinion. All too often when opposing opinions, including those of a journalistic nature, perform battle in the arena the results tend to generate a lot of rancorous debate, acrimony, hard feelings, broken friendships and strained alliances. What is often missed in the ensuing battle for dominance is the fact that ALL opinions, no matter what position they take, end up getting bruised and lacerated by the same double edged sword. This double edged sword is more often than not powered by the seductive emotions of outrage. The seductive double edged sword of outrage doesn't care whose opinion is being slaughtered. It simply strikes. It strikes repeatedly because it is addictively delicious to do so. I know that I am not immune to the sword's seductive power. I constantly try to remind myself of a concept attributed to another learned man whose credentials remain steeped in mythology: Let he who is free of imperfection, let he who knows he has freed himself from the clutches of dogma and the seductive emotions of outrage cast the first strike. At times I know I have failed miserably when I struck out at others when perhaps I should have held my tongue, and pen. At least I try to be aware of the sword's seductive presence in my life. That's half the battle. In conclusion, I could speculate that there might be a few lurking within the catacombs of the Vort Collective who may try to interpret the content of my little essay as possessing hidden meanings - or that I really meant to say this, or that, yadda, yadda, yadda. It was intentional on my part to remain neutral. Often there is no right or wrong answer. There are only actions and the consequences of those actions. It's best to make them those actions count. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
