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
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/
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.
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 t
"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 p
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
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 genuin
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 nee
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
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 Th
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
pe
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.
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
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 a
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 c
>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 wr
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 b
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
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 serious
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.
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 fa
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
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
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 wit
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 rationa
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 t
26 matches
Mail list logo
