On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Mary Yugo wrote:
It is absolutely inane to ask critics to "read the literature". You think
we have nothing better to do than to spend time with unlimited quantities
of inadequate and difficult to understand papers?
Certainty that LENR critics should be ignorant of LENR evidence? Hm.
And applying negative labels to papers never read, in order to excuse any
need to read them? That's really insane. That's "flamer crap," a totally
blatant symptom of irrational, emotion-based pseudoscience generally
called "pathological skepticism" or "pseudo-skepticism." Rational,
scientific people don't do that stuff, even by mistake.
It's your job as
proponent of this technology to choose the few papers, in any exist, maybe
two or three best ones, for us to read.
No, it's the critic's job to know the topic before judging. It's the
basic method of science: judging *after* inspecting evidence, thus
avoiding emotional bias leading to data selection error.
Really, this is like finding an odd restaurant critic who believes that
going to numerous restaurants is Just Not Done, and that all restaurants
should deliver food to the restaurant reviewer's office. This attitude is
a huge red-flag for the pretend-scientist... to already have judged
(perhaps based only on concensus-following, not on personal study?) then
to find "perfectly sensible" reasons to not read read on the topic they're
judging.
Very tricky.
It should be papers that show at
least a watt of CLEARLY and PROPERLY measured excess heat with no infusion
of fresh fuel, running vastly longer -- orders of magnitude longer -- than
a chemical reaction or stored heat could provide.
And you leap to the conclusion that no such papers exist? Amazing.
THAT is what Rossi
failed to do. THAT is what you have failed to point us to. And it's your
job as the proponent to do the pointing. It is not our job to go rummaging
through all the "stuff".
This above, this is the stereotyped attack of the Scoffer/flamer/troll.
It's what they always try, over numerous instances starting back in 1989
on Compuserve. Giving such people some research papers (or pointing out
books and reference articles) falls right into the dishonest rhetorical
trap they've prepared for their victim. Don't do it.
Their request for papers is fake. It's Trolling, it's a 'politician'
ploy. Think a moment: a rational critic of LENR would already know the
field; at the very least have read the pro/con books, found reading lists,
reviewed recommended papers, etc. A troll instead twists the debate
around, attacking with utter confidence based on their own false
certainty, then blaming the victim of the attack for not having done the
critic's background work for them. And if the victim refuses to fall for
it, they can say "See, they wouldn't send me those papers!"
Making a victim of your attack look bad? And convincing onlookers that
the attacker is the wronged party? That's an elegant ploy taken right
from the con-artist list; from the political arena, and is quite
disgusting from the standpoint of the extreme honesty required throughout
science. And when done habitually, skillfully, it's a huge flashing sign
saying "THIS IS A TROLL."
Sometimes an intellectually honest, sharp person will make an occasional
slip into very twisted dishonesty. This above does not resemble such a
case.
> You have no idea how many papers describe the results you say have
> never been published. Anyone who has read the literature can see that
> you are wrong.
Really? You think it's some sort of universal stupidity or pernicious
viciousness that prevents the majority of nuclear scientists and physicists
No, they use exactly the same excuses that you're using right now.
That's how these community-wide false concensuses always arise. I decide
to sneer at Goddard only because everyone else is sneering at Goddard, and
of course That Many Scientists Cannot Be Mistaken. Scientific American
totally refuses to send any reporters to Huffman Prarie to view the Wright
Flyer, saying it's because other newspapers haven't already sent
reporters. The balanced razor blade falls in one direct5ion, and the
research community insists that an enormous force must have pushed it that
way, so their thoughtless judgement must be correct.
from believing that robust energy production has been achieved with LENR?
That would be simple paranoia.
Accusing the victims of 'suppression of intellectual dissent' of paranoia?
That one's right out of my symptoms-list of the Pseudoskeptic.
OK, I'm convinced.
Mary Yugo, you're seem to be the very prototype of the emotion-based
pseudoscientist. Blocking you from fringe science forums is the reason
Vortex-L exists in the first place.
PS
The fake name, that *really* is a signifier of the common Troll.
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
