On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 09:41 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released >> on Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do >> you think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency? >> > > How did you get a copy? The copy I saw was on NET, and no provenance was > given. He has said it many times. He was given it directly by the Authors of the report. In other words if you take Jed's word for it it is almost without question genuine and if you don't then expect him to be investigated. > > > In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still >> argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a >> fake/it's not official. >> >> >> By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the >> comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical >> papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would >> never apply that standard to those documents because they support the >> skeptical point of view. >> > > Actually, they don't accept the reviewer comments. That's actually part of > the problem. They don't even accept the body of the 2004 review, they just > want to rely on that comment at the end that the conclusions were much the > same as in 1989. Which is true, of course. Both 1989 and 2004 came to the > same conclusion, as to what the DoE was interested in, theoretically: > whether or not to fund research. No focused program, but specific grants > under existing programs to resolve the obvious questions. > > But that statement applied to the body of the report and the position of > the panel is preposterous. There was a world of difference between the 1989 > and 2004 reviews. Only a little more, and the 2004 would have been a > majority "cold fusion is likely" conclusion. In 1989, support for CF was > very weak, no more than about two panelists, including the co-chair who > demanded the relatively lukewarm statement. Nobody had to make that demand, > to threaten to resign, in 2004. > > > Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote: >> >> "[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable >> unless they are adressed by secondary sources." >> >> He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason. >> > > That's right. In any case, that report is a secondary source analysis. It's > not peer-reviewed, perhaps, though that's not clear. It's an ordinary > secondary source, better than a media source, probably weaker than something > like the ACS Sourcebook. In other words, there is already lots of secondary > source reviewing cold fusion, but they keep making up excuses. Obviously, > Marwan and Krivit managed to hoodwink those at the American Chemical Society > who are responsible for the Symposium series. And somehow that has managed > to escape notice, so that those con artists are publishing another volume. > > Really, their self-deception gets more and more complicated. > > > The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or >> ignore evidence they do not want to see. >> > > Has Denial ever been different? Religious note: this is the meaning of > "kufr," in the Qur'an. The word is translated, often, as "unbelief," but > that's a bad translation. The root means to "cover." Denial is a good > translation. Not "The unbelievers," but "the people of denial." And denial > means that they deny what they actually see or would know if they reflected. > > (Not intending any religious argument here. There is a form of skepticism > which is essential and which was, I'll assert, characteristic of a major > early sect of Islam, dominant for a short time until the tide of politics > turned, they overplayed their hand against the other groups. The Mu'tazila, > which means "the postponers." On matters not clear, they postpone judgment. > To apply this to cold fusion, I'd raise the name of Nate Hoffman, who is, I > know, one of Jed's favorite people. Hoffman was clearly skeptical, but > didn't appear to worship his skepticism, and acknowledged the existence of > some interesting evidence. In other words, he didn't close the book with a > conclusion of bogosity, he left it open. May he rest in peace.) >
