Jed, I frequently say that I am not a qualified science person, particularly in regards to nuclear science, which I have very little background in. However, and to your disappointment:) , I will voice my opinion as I see fit. If scientists had THE answer than the rest of us would be obsolete. I think reality is that to take good informed decisions one need to take in data from 'all walks of life'. The example given above about weather / climate is a good example. There is a cost involved and there are political issues to consider and on top of it all the problems are largest where the economy will be most hurt by a quick enforcement of a world with no CO2 pollution. So even if the increase in global temperature is depending mostly (which I doubt) on our CO2 pollution we need to overcome other problems to get the issue in a better state. US has been very late to adopt any pollution recommendations made by institutions like UN. The reason has been that strong industrial powers did not want this expensive regulation. Europe, which is more densely populated , has had to take steps in this direction for a long time. Now the big expense will hit areas where the economy cannot take the cost (same reasoning as the US put forward 30 years ago). In other words we need to cough up the money if we want to see any progress in that field. LENR would certainly be a great help. In the meantime we will see statements like the one from Paris coming out at great cost and with zero impact. When US make a 10% import fee on all Chinese merchandise and then turn those money into improvement of the pollution in China's developing cities then things will happen. Popular - don't you think?
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > there are case where communities of scientist were locked in groupthink, >> often locally because until recently science was not globally judged. >> >> N-Ray was very popular in french science. >> Wegener was very Impopular >> LENR is unpopular >> > > > Those are bad examples: > > The N-Ray was briefly popular among a small number of scientists. It was > never confirmed. Most scientists paid no attention to it. Polywater, which > was similar, was only partially confirmed by one laboratory. Many others > look for it, found nothing, and never claimed a replication. > > Wegner was unpopular but most scientists paid no attention to his findings > or data. They did not know what he claimed, so they had no business > criticizing it. Most scientists who criticize cold fusion know nothing > about the subject. They are not experts in any sense. > > LENR is unpopular among scientists who know nothing about it. Their > opinions count for nothing. As far as I know, every scientist with > expertise in a relevant field, such as electrochemistry or tritium > detection, who has looked at the data carefully has been convinced that > cold fusion is real. Nearly every scientist, except for Dieter Britz. > > Seriously, asking a scientist who has read nothing about cold fusion to > express an opinion is an absurd thing to do. How can they know anything?!? > By ESP? You might as well ask police officers or cashiers at a grocery > store whether cold fusion is real. It is like asking a typical Georgia > politician whether global warming is real. Most of them are so ignorant > they think the world is 6000 years old! > > What is so funny is that many of these politicians predicate their > response by saying, "I am not a scientist but . . ." I would tell them: > "Okay, if you are not a scientist then shut up! Since you are not a > scientist you should defer to the scientists. Would you advise doctors how > to perform brain surgery? Would you tell NASA how to fix a complex problem > with the Curiosity robot explorer on Mars?" > > > >> What can lock people who seems honest is "Groupthink". >> > > I think it is mostly just old-fashioned stupidity. Also the Dunning-Kruger > effect. > > - Jed > >
