🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Aug, 00:51, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
> foolsrushin. wrote:
> > On 3 Aug, 21:44, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>On Aug 3, 4:09 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >>>On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT), Occidental
> >>><Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >>>>>Yes it HAS been peer reviewed..!
> >>>>>   I just told you its published in 2 peer reviewed
> >>>>>journals:
> > [snip.]
> >>The number of citations received by a paper is a far better indicator
> >>of quality than mere publication since citations represent the verdict
> >>rendered by the entire academic community over a period of years,
> >>rather than that of a small number of reviewers over a few weeks. The
> >>first paper you list was published fourteen years ago and apparently
> >>has no or few citations, ie it sank without trace, so we can infer
> >>what the academic community thinks of it. The same is probably true of
> >>the second.
> > Sounds like mob rule of physics to me;

> Mob rule not! Correctness in terms of "what actually
> has been shown to work" is more acceptable to the
> greatest number. The distribution curve has a friend
> in reasonability.

Good stuff: no irony! Cell phones. MP3's. Rudolph Diesel.

> > we haven't yet got past the
> > territorial nimby notions that knowledge is a matter of a vote by this
> > or that Scientific Community.

> You and your ilk may not have, but you don't speak for
> rational peoples.

They ain't: I mean the scientific community. The reason for peer
review is conflict resolution - not celebration of success!

> > Against all the odds of inertia, self-interest and systematic
> > bamboozelment of the unscientifically-minded, science has, step-by-
> > step, via binary investigation, conjecture, and refutation transformed
> > the prospects of even the poorest on Earth.
>
> As the invariable tom foolery that is socialism, you
> seem to believe that socialist principles should
> drive everything. It was only by thuggery that that
> experiment lasted as long as it did.

Actually, I am NOT a socialist, a creed I find reductionst and
oppressive.

> > Whatever the validity of Hammond's conjecture or proof,

> Start with there is none, nor can there ever be. Why even the
> suggestion is ignoble.

Indeed, but all I have said is that the REACTION to his claims
AMPLIFIES a sort of rhetoric I find counter-productive. Hutchinson is
not mad, but the Effect takes us nowhere at all: you'd need to invest
to find out! Who cares about a bloke with things flying about his lab
if nobody knows WHY? And WHY would mean, for example, something flying
in a straight line, under control!

> > the attitude
> > betrayed in the responses of his critics is the reason scientists fear
> > ridicule and keep their heads down!

> It is not scientists keeping their heads down, it is the
> fate designed for k00ks and cranks.

Because of the fate designed for kooks and cranks and the ridicule
factor of 'flat-earthers', we do not live in an openly speculative
society!

> > In private, a space-time bubble,
> > anti-gravity device? Who nose!
>
> Proposing the equality of all ideas is stupid, reeking
> of joy juice rather than reason.

Yes, voting on what is true is irrelevant scientifically, but can stop
all politically! My late business partner, John Turner (IQ 225) was
fascinated with UFO reports, as was Eric Leathwaite, of Imperial
College, London. 'John T: we need a new physics!.' Never said much at
work, though! Felt it would have ended his career!

> > Priestley, a church minister and a theologian, could not keep his nose [knows]
> > out of nature, and discovered, among other things 'phlogisticated
> > air': learn what ensued:
> >http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

> As it is with the ministry, science calls many, choses few.

And anything they manage to get hold of, research costs, is
immediately under wraps! I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I can
imagine easily why I might want to keep something off the market when
I am piling up dosh! Only one reason.

> Where's the rub?

One [other] rub is: What happens if you could solve all pollution and
energy problems tomorrow morning? Chaos in economies! Belief, alas, is
mor important than truth!
--
foolsrushin.'