The challenge in understanding LENR and its eventual acceptance by mainstream science is that it is driven by a zoo of complex interacting quantum mechanical phenomena. In order to make any progress in LENR, original and out-of-the-box experimental techniques are required to provide a reliable conceptual benchmark for understanding LENR.
Fortunately, many of these techniques have been developed over more than 40 years since 1974 in the study of Nanoplasmonics. Using Nanoplasmonics as an experimental template, the challenge is separating the nonsense imposed by our common sense from what is quantum mechanical reality. This baseline is done at the experimental setup phase in the process of sub-atomic phenomenal evaluation. The ability to accept new LENR based ideas is built into the experimental discipline of plasmonics based science. No more than a few hundred people throughout this world have the required background to understand what is really going on in LENR. The ability to properly understand LENR will only come from a comprehensive study of Nanoplasmonics and its optical and quantum mechanical underpinnings. This background comes as a complete package and a narrow specialization, like the ability to speak new Mongolian languages easily or the ability to play first violin in a symphony orchestra. These abilities can only come from a huge amount of work and study in a highly focused and demanding scientific specialty. I suggest that once sufficient talent is planted on this correct track of study and enlightenment, only then will substantial progress in LENR be made. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I suggest we are not dealing only with creativity here. What passes for > new ideas or creative thinking is more often nonsense or insane rambling. > We are shocked by the rejection only when the idea is later found to be > correct or is applied in a useful way. Most ideas that might be called > creative do not reach this level because they are based on nonsense. > > The challenge is separating the nonsense from what is real early in the > process of evaluation. Some ideas get accepted early. Take the computer > for example. This was introduced into society very rapidly. Of course a few > people and businesses ignored the idea, but many other people accepted the > idea because it worked. Gates became a success very quickly. The creative > ideas introduced by Apple are accepted without any rejection because they > are obvious to the most uneducated. In fact, the ability to understand and > accept new ideas is related to education. An uneducated society or person > will naturally reject complex ideas more often than an educated person. > > In the case of CF and many other discoveries, the rejection is based on a > threat to self interests, which has no relationship to creativity. > > Nevertheless, I find the basic ability to accept new ideas is built into > the individual mind. Some people have this ability and most do not, > regardless of education. The ability simply comes with the package, like > ability to speak new languages easily or musical ability. These abilities > can be enhanced but they can not be created if they are not present > initially. I suggest this is also true of creativity and the ability to > accept new ideas. > > > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > about human fear of change this join this study > http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm > > I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR, is > partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could have make > LENR a success. > > > 2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > >> Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found >>> reasons to reject. >>> >> >> Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in >> public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove >> said. They hated it from the moment they heard about it, and they began >> scheming to discredit it. They succeeded! >> >> This happened with other discoveries such as the laser. >> >> >> When it worked on occasion, I found these successes were generally >>> ignored. They were ignored locally at the laboratories where the studies >>> were made and later by the DOE panel. >>> >> >> This often happens. There are countless examples in history. >> >> >> >>> I can suggest three main reasons were used by normally rational, honest, >>> and educated men to modify what they believed. >>> >>> 1. The claim conflicted with known and expected behavior based on hot >>> fusion. People assumed CF and HF were the same phenomenon. Some people >>> still have this belief. . . . >>> >> >> I agree with these three main reasons. I would add a fourth reason: human >> nature. Most people reject most novel ideas out of instinct. People fear >> novelty. They fear the unknown; that is, unknown places, sights, smells and >> other stimuli. This is instinct. It is a product of evolution. There is a >> countervailing instinct explore the unknown. The two instincts are at war >> with one another. Some people are more inclined to fear, other to explore. >> You can observe the same push-pull fear and attraction in other species. In >> the 1970s in Japan I took part in studies in which we measured these >> effects in guppies, and in Japanese ground squirrels. >> >> This was masterfully described by Francis Bacon: >> >> "The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, >> (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it >> affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; >> and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, >> yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects >> them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than >> sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions." >> >> - Novum Organum, 1620 >> >> >> And by William Trotter: >> >> "If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun >> to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated." >> >> - Jed >> >> > >
