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 <p...@rasdoc.com> 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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > 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 >> >> >
