Monday, June 24, 2013

SCIENTISM-1, GLUCK-0; the first half.


If you can't be a good example, you'll have to be a terrible warning. (Catherine Aird)

My gratitude goes to the readers who have answered to my questionnaire re SCIENTISM and LENR or have tried to help me in other ways. This gratitude includes NOT citing them in connection with some quite dangerous heretical ideas for which I take alone the full responsibility.
Actually, this paper just tries to call your active attention to the survival problem of LENR, it is an expression of deep discontent with the situation in the field and is a new assertion of the idea that only a mixed approach (scientific and technological) can assure a future for LENR. Homo sapiens and Homo faber have to work together for pleasing Homo discontentus. The generally accepted idea is different- first Homo sapiens has to decipher all the puzzles of LENR and then he can tell Homo faber what to do.
Scientism as a general concept is an unrealistic belief in the omnipotence of OUR science (Science hic et nunc). However it is in any case much better than the contrary opinion and, in practice is sooner or later corrected by reality. Perhaps the correct, direct question could have been:
“Is LENR a special victim of scientism?” A very inopportune question because it is common sense that Cold Fusion has problems of development due to oppression by closed minded and ill-willed skeptics and only lack of funding and support has stopped LENR to become the most important, clean, green energy source on Terra. However, till the reproducibility problem will not be solved= it will be something very rotten in LENR-land.

I have to confess: only a good dose of plum brandy has saved me from depression when during my study of the papers to be presented at the coming ICCF-18 in a keynote paper (Kidwell) I have read: Unfortunately, the poor reproducibility (<6%) prevented discovery of the trigger for this excess heat.” This is a kind of reality I am unable to accept. My ideas are probably solitary and non-scientific and deeply mistaken; I wrote an Open Letter to the previous ICCF-17 and I have told straightly what I think- and this was ended with:
“We have to acknowledge that LENR is like a caterpillar that has to be metamorphosed in LENR+- a butterfly able to fly (i.e. to generate useful energy).. Instead of conclusions…
I think the best option is for radical changes, first of all in the mode(s) of thinking in/re LENR.”

That my success/impact/influence was zero or even negative is demonstrated inter alia by the very slogan of the coming ICCF:

“Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.”

Is this realistic, stimulating, inspiring?
Can the scientific method applied well when the process is not under control? Are Mother Nature’s answers useful when She whispers and stutters?
Is understanding the ultimate aim when we have to solve the problem of energy? (here I suddenly remembered quinine that is used against malaria with some success, but its mechanism of action is still not fully understood. And LENR seems to be seriously ill; an analogy with malaria is even not so idiotic, high fever episodes are not predictable.
And nothing is more counter-productive and self-destructive than calling anomalous (even temporary) a phenomenon aiming to furnish energy for billions of people.
Otherwise, as Cuvier would say the crab is indeed a little red fish that moves backward. And LENR is purely scientific, completely knowable now, and is indeed weird.
One reader has interpreted my essay as a wake up call for conventional science; actually I am focusing on the LENR community that was not conventional but has recently embraced the idea of science as first priority, kind of Science uber alles. The crisis of global science- physics first-is a too complex subject for this blog, here and now.
Very interesting for me is the idea taken from the genius de jour, Nicholas Nassim Taleb of ‘via negativa’ in usual language it is more urgent and important to get first rid of the evil harmful things and only later add or build the positive things. Your humble friend has arrived to the same conclusion years ago see please my 20 Problem Solving Rules or this essay-puzzle whose unique solution is the boldest word: NO!
In the case of LENR the “negative way” is to solve, to get rid of the life-or-death problem of reproducibility that also includes low intensity and duration of excess heat. I know well many of my friends will say that is stupid exaggeration coming from somebody unable to comprehend  the subtleties of the scientific method and will give examples  of sporadic or unpredictable  or uncontrollable processes that are doing quite well, scientifically i.e are studied with care by many researchers. The killer difference is that cold fusion had ab ovo great technological ambitions. Now it has great but undefined scientific ambitions.

An other wise reader has patiently explained me that what happened, rejection reaction to CF and the reactions of those rejected by the scientific community are both conditioned culturally and by the standard modes of thinking. We do not have to assume any conspiracy. The inability to cope with the frightening complexity of the reality, manifested as extreme wickedness of the research problems. The symbolic boat of LENR was caught and became a long-time prisoner between the Scylla of skepticism (outer) and the Charybdis of scientism (inner). This situation has to be seen as a special, extreme case of the crisis in science-physics-thinking- that claims a revolution. It seems also that the unique salvation of the crew from the fatal attraction of the rocks and deadly currents of Scylla and Chrybdis is to change the boat from LENR to LENR+ much more advanced technically.  
As a honest writer I take the responsibility for this dubious metaphor, the reader has exposed these ideas with proper words- but this is what I was able to understand from the message.

An other nice reader calls our/your unkind attention to dogmatism, including its institutionalized form- a formidable force of inertia. Surprisingly stubborn anyway. I will cite this friend protected by anonymity:
There are times when the physical reality intrudes so greatly upon our consciousnesses that the old systems and institutions fail, or are weakened enough that revolutionary progress occurs. as opposed to the evolutionary progress that is the institutional methods great strength.” 
In other words powerful shocks are  necessary to remove the old inner paradigm of LENR and then the unjust chronicized rigid impenetrable skepticism can /will gradually melt away.
The obstacle and the way out are defined: the principle difficulty holding back the field is the lack of researchers that can be open minded enough to allow the new ideas in, and skeptical enough to block the old and bad ideas out. Instead, you have true believers for whom every experiment is a vindication and victory, and skeptics for whom everything is a fraud and a cheat.” 

The debates around LENR are fierce, and the methods used quite despicable. A geographically distant close-in-thinking friend raises the idea of right-brain vs. left-brain thinking in these debates; perhaps this deserves a special chapter in an old vs. new thinking editorial about LENR (and LENR vs. LENR+)
An other subject of paramount importance: when scientism will be removed and the problem of energy source will be solved in practice, the field will need a new theory, actually a creative association of diverse theories. A task for generations, but technological and commercial success does NOT depend on a perfect theory. Frere Axil contributes a lot to this Theory in statu nascendi
Frere Alain, on his turn correlates the present problem with Kuhn’s theory including paradigm change that will be fatal for scientism and all the other obstacles in the way of a new energy technology- or more. I am citing Alain because he is resistant to attacks- is an anti-fragile personality. (we have to explore Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s book to learn how LENR – now fragmented, broken can become an Anti-fragile construction indeed, as it has to be!
A discontented author of a new theory has reminded us: “The status quo has always powerful allies” True at the third power…

Two complete answers to my questionnaire
Special thanks and my comments in blue go to B.A. and E.P. who have answered directly to all my 5 questions re Scientism.\

The first
Q1: Is the problem of scientism an important one or is just an unjustified attack of reactionary people against Science?

A 1: I do not know the answer, but I suspect it is 'just the way things go'. That is, it is part of the human condition. 

C1: Yes, we err, and err and so on, but supposedly less, perhaps it is time to solve the problem and for this we will need a lot of realism and pragmatism, Active discontent is an even more human condition, see please this quote by Andre Malraux: “Often the difference between a successful person and a failure is not one has better abilities or ideas, but the courage that one has to bet on one's ideas, to take a calculated risk - and to act.” Boldness is the key for LENR

Q2 Had/has our field, LENR, a scientism problem and in what extent has this influenced its development?

A2: LENR had their problem defined for them and it made success nearly impossible, because fusion is not the root cause of the energy.

C2- This is a radical idea, attacking in a way an original certainty of the field, possibly its most sacred cow. However being given the powerful meme ‘nuclear is bad’ non-nuclear or differently nuclear is a good thing. Just wait

Q3. Do you accept that in present there are some inextricable complex and temporary unknowable things in LENR?

A3: No, the problem is finding the right metaphor.  For example; I once told a group of children that birds pull the grass up rather than growing. Later in life if they want a nice lawn they will buy birdseed rather than grass seed. LENR has bought into D-D fusion where it does not exist.
I have to agree with both the metaphor idea and with LENR community chasing sometimes inexistent beasts and chimaeras.

Q4-5. What is the main problem of the field now and what is the best approach to a solution?

A 4-5: See above

C 4-5: This seems to imply that the most scarce and  critical resource now for LENR is creative ideas not funding but I will let you to decide if you say this or not.

Q6. What will be the global situation of the field in 1, 3, 5 years from now?

A6: Rossi, Defkalion or others may break out soon, but their behavior is troubling.

C6: Actually these are solutions from outside of LENR community and we cannot expect from outsiders to respect our rules. The basic and primary nature of these LENR+ solution is not scientific but technology+engineering+ management-business. Why should these discoverer-developers strive desperately for peer reviewed all telling
papers in the best journals or open demos and detailed
reports helping existent and coming competition to reduce
the business intelligence-industrial espionage-reverse engineering expenses to a fraction of that “normal”?

The second

Q1: Is the problem of scientism an important one or is just an unjustified attack of reactionary people against Science?

A1: Is scientism a major problem? No. Let's consider four groups the general public, politicians, scientists who are focused on money and position, scientists who are focused on understanding/finding new things. The first group believes science knows all and is certain. They are wrong, but it is not important they have little power or influence. The second group does not take unnecessary risks. They will not risk their success on uncertain science though some well understand science is uncertain. Scientists who, regardless of why they entered science, are now focused on their status will not take risks just like politicians. Some of them understand science is uncertain. Some of them entered science to avoid the anxiety caused by more fluid fields of human endeavor. They have made science rigid to meet their psychological needs. The last group is harmed by scientism in the other three groups, but there is little they can do about it.

C1 Perhaps scientism is good outside science and bad inside it.

Q2 Had/has our field, LENR, a scientism problem and in what extent has this influenced its development?

A2: No. LENR has political problems among career scientist and politicians. Seldom (only in LENR?) does science offer a big and immediate threat to a trillion dollar per year industry. When you threaten thousands of multimillionaires, and several multibillionaires expect violent and systemic push back. I think this is a special case for LENR.

C2- Usually (and psychologically) pride is considered the worst of the seven deadly sins. It is dangerous and counter-productive to think that science, pure science alone can solve all our problems and technology should come only later when
we are happy know-it-alls.

Q3. Do you accept that in present there are some inextricable complex and temporary unknowable things in LENR?

A3: Of course there are complex things going on that need detailed experimental data to understand.

C3-bad reproducibility unfortunately means that even the successful experiments give very different results and data. Too much chaos in the field.

Q4-5. What is the main problem of the field now and what is the best approach to a solution?

A 4-5: Lack of data is the main problem. The solution is more data. I do not expect money from the western/global-bank governments. I think parametrizing response to a few variable will be a big step forward and can be done by individuals.

C4-5: perhaps the problem is even more difficult. I am more and more convinced that even with a million researchers working with F&P Cells and an other million trying to get the best data and highest performances from the most pre-formed nano-structures- static NAE- a lot of data will be obtained but no real progress toward an energy source. The
Sine-qua-non condition for a technology is dynamic NAE.

Q6: What will be the global situation of the field in 1, 3, 5 years from now?

A6:  If someone or some group parameterizes the excess heat from nickel/copper in terms of temperature, hydrogen pressure, and lifetime as limited by nickel/copper, lifetime as limited by hydrogen, effect of various temperatures cycling then in five years there will be some government money for more data taking. With some luck the energy poor and non global-bank countries (the ones that are human capital rich) will be quietly developing LENR+ for themselves and their militaries. That is Japan, Italy, China, and India.

C6- I think we will know soon what is the real source of excess heat, we will be surprised but able to develop LENR+ faster and faster

The author who has inspired the essay, Dave Pollard nicely said he is respecting my opinion but is far from being a cold fusion or LENR believer. In any case he is convinced that the human society is “so” unsustainable that even an energy revolution cannot save us from the Collapse. On the contrary:
“I would hazard a guess that if some astonishing new energy technology were invented and rolled out with record speed it might make the ultimate collapse of our civilization even more catastrophic by enabling population and exhaustion of our planet to accelerate even more quickly over the cliff.”

On my turn, I respect Dave’s opinion.

As a kind of consolation- I am worried that my grandchildren will not be able to cope with that evil Collapse without my help- I got a nice message of a biologist, knower of many “isms” who gave me good ideas re LENR and the biosphere.

Eventually I think scientism needs a partner for constructive disputes.

I got the solution from Gary Wright who “created” a relevant accusation in his newest paper: Hanno Essén Admits Recent Test of E-cat NOT Science” Subtle suggestion- if it is NOT science, the test is not valid, it is a blunder, a shame and so on, fiat justitia, pereat Rossi! For details please read Gary’s paper.

It was a black box experiment without theoretical foundation and it does not contribute to the advancement of human knowledge.
It has simply shown that the HotCat produces excess heat something very undesirable for Gary who has bet his virtual reputation on the repeated assertion that Rossi is a fraud.
“It is not Science!” but how will sound “It is not Technology?”
Something that resembles perhaps Science but cannot be converted in a technology. I am starting to write a list but now I have to finish this paper with the warning: “Scientism creates (new) problems or our field, does not solve them!”
Scientism in LENR is powerful; today I have no chances in confronting it. I am searching allies, humans because reality that is already on my part, has very limited convincing power compared to strong memes.



  1. First of all, sorry I'm just moderately antifragile, and quite fragile as my country and my education prepared me to be. I live in a great "fragilistan" where we can keep things running as usual until it explode.

    about Theory and practice, I will quote the draft ideas of Taleb, much more detailed in Antifragile:

    Quotes are from "History being written by the losers"

    "Then I realized that there has to be a problem with education—any form of formal education. I collected enough evidence that once you get a theory in your head, you can no longer understand how people can operate without it. And you look at practitioners, lecture them on how to do their business, and live under the illusion that they owe you their lives. Without your theories and your learning they will never go anywhere.
    The biggest myth I’ve encountered in my life is as follows: that the road from practical know-how to theoretical knowledge is reversible—in other words, that theoretical knowledge can lead to practical applications, just as practical applications can lead to theoretical knowledge. After all, this is the reason we have schools, universities, professors, research centers, homework, exams, essays, dissertations, and the strange brand of individuals called “economists."

    "Yet the strange thing is that it is very hard to realize that knowledge cannot travel equally in both directions. It flows better from practice to theory—but to understand it you have nontheoretical knowledge. And people who have nontheoretical knowledge don’t think of these things."

    "It is not just that history is written by the winners; it is written by the losers—those losers with access to the printing press, namely finance professors. I noted while reading a book by Mark Rubinstein how he stuck the names of finance professors on products we practitioners had been trading and perfecting at least a decade earlier. History written by the losers? A prime example is how the historian managed to downplay his “portfolio insurance,” a method that failed miserably in the crash of 1987. "

    "History is truly written by losers with time on their hands and a protected academic position. In the greatest irony, the historical account of techné in derivatives pricing that Haug and I wrote was submitted in response to an invitation by an encyclopedia of quantitative finance. The editor of the historical section, proceeded to rewrite our story to reverse its message and glorify the
    epistemé crowd."

    Thos quotes explain we have the impression that theory is essentiel to technology, that it could not exist without theory... while it is the opposite.

    What happened with LENR+ is ... classic... normal...

    as said Eric Walker, MIT will have invented LENR in 2005.

    and Defkalion and Rossi will be a gang of tinkerer , but wealthy, who deserve no care in history.

  2. There is a long standing century’s long war staring with whale oil vs. kerosene going on between various segments of the energy market. Each segment has a list of propaganda weapons that it uses to undercut its competition. In the end, it all boils down to market share and money.

    The fossil fuel segment undercuts nuclear energy based on radiation, the dangers of nuclear waste, cost, melt down danger, the uranium depleted future, and so on.

    Nuclear undercuts fossil fuels with global warming, water pollution as a product of fracking, radiation caused by coal burning, oil spills fouling the oceans.

    Nuclear and fossil fuels, undercut wind energy through grid problems, intermittency, high energy invested again energy gain.

    Solar is undercut by cloudy days, high costs, high land use and long dark nights.

    LENR is being attacked in like manor, but in a more unfocused way because few attackers know how LENR really works.

    The will be an attempt to connect LENR with the nuclear power attack venue, to make use of all the nuclear propaganda.

    There will eventually be a reach for the nuclear weapons connection as related to LENR.

    The LENR vs. LENR+ debate is a microcosm of the energy wars reflected inside the LENR theorist community.

    Such debate is a reflection of the age old struggle for dominance that goes back to the horse and buggy vs. the automobile debate.

    The way to respond to this certain adversarial situation going forward is to perfect the LENR energy wars arguments against the energy competition.

    These energy wars are essentially a political battle and as such the back and forth dialog must be prepared for and carried out with speed, gleeful enthusiasm, and untiring perseverance.

    1. Axil

      Good points - a nice read - thanks

      It reminded me of how Edison publicly electrocuted horses (& I think an elephant) to try and prove how dangerous AC current was. I agree that a scare by associating LENR+ with radioactivity might be the equivalent & am sure is still an arrow sitting in the anti-LENR+ quiver.


  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Peter
    I think that your basic article, this summary of responses and most of the comments so far highlight the reality on past and presence of the so called CF/LENR field (and not only).

    Allow my 2cents in this collective brain storming:

    As a newbie in this field, I always had the question on what went so bad back in 89 (and what follows). It is quite obvious that the the dipole scientism-sceptics is strong since then, these two factors are actually the two sides of the same coin. Looking for that coin, I searched Margaret Thacher's org archives ( mainly on the Geneva 85 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev. That was the moment the "big powers" of the Cold War were bargaining and bluffing. Following the links I reached

    Combining these with wikipedia articles on tokamak and ITET, it seems that the "poker" between the Super Powers back to the end of cold war ended with two bluffs: Reagan resigned from his Star War plans, that could not work back then, and Gorby gave away as a return a soviet technology of the 60s that he knew that did not work as defined! EU was the main (but not the only) victim as Europeans still pay 45% out of the 16bil euros ITER cost so far, plus much more on dirty energies imported!

    Poor Martin Fleischman had no chance to destroy with his electrolytic devise this game of the "big players" back in 89, making also the mistake to accept the Cold Fusion term (defined by a journalist!),accepting by that the scientific base to interpret or to model the "CF" phenomena as a "magic" way to overcome the Hot fusion technicalities and problems.

    We know now, following also the recent developments in nearby fields such as plasmonics, nanotechnology or material science, that the so called LENR phenomena are not so simple as defined by the brutal force strategies of hot fusion guys and the academia supporting them (with good returns) or some of the main stream gurus of the "LENR" field. It is also remarkable to notice that the plasmonics field was founded on early M. Fleischman's papers back in 74. IMHO Martin Fleischman was poining us to the moon and we were focusing to his finger over all these years.

    This might be the basic strategic mistake done so far leading to the 1-0 score between scientism and science (and societies) during this first half time of a very complex, sensitive and important football game between scientists. Unfortunately the ball is the earth in this game, the audience is still watching silently or puzzled and the referees are not natural. Some times in such cases, the game finishes with angry crowds entering the game-field to dictate the fair game. It is a very big responsibility of anyone related in this scientific and technological adventure to understand the reality and accept a clear role towards the catharsis needed.
    Thank you

  5. Thanks! However let's practice a bit of nuanced
    thinking; Cold Fusion has appeared as a Black Swan
    event when the world and, first of all, its Fathers
    were not prepared for it.
    And it had a historical non-chance, it has appeared
    in a NON technological place, electrochemical cell
    (non-technological if it is about heat, not electric current!)
    The situation could have been very different if CF had been
    discovered in a heterogeneous catalysis reactor, or if, say
    Piantelli would have been the first- before F & P.
    But so errors were very natural.
    Today the key is to NOT PERSEVERE IN ERRORS and to boldly change direction, I think. New way new wave, new thinking.

  6. Peter, It seems to me too much of the world remains focused on the difficult P&F wet Pd+D experiments when (as you say) Piantelli's dry Ni+H experiments are considered to have produced far better results.

    If I am reading things correctly at least 4 groups can claim to have replicated key aspects of Piantelli's original Ni+H success.

    These are :-
    - Piantelli himself (including his new 2013 granted patent)
    - Andrea Rossi who worked from Piantelli's 1995 patent
    - DGT who were convinced Rossi had replicated Piantelli's work and then set about to prove they could do so too
    - Brillouin who have convinced SRI to help build an experimental large Ni+H based boiler after demoing a small unit

    So it seems to me that if Piantelli or NiHenergy published more about their success and DGT too (as they have promised at ICCF-18 & NIWeek) and also Brillouin too. If they were all willing to open up just a bit more, then we might be able to take attention away from the IMHO 'going nowhere' Pd+D focus.

    I know NicHenergy presented a paper on behalf of Piantelli in 2102 that mentioned small amounts of anomalous heat, but with no follow up it is now 'out of sight, out of mind'. It is very tempting to take the intervening silence as indicative of no progress. So in many ways we are left with the main targets being the 'going nowhere' Pd+D experiments and sadly they make a very good negative targets for anti-LENR nay-sayers.

    We urgently need more LENR+ success stories, that can be believed, and that can leave a far better impression than Pd+D.


    1. I agree with much of what you say, howver you will receive a private answer

  7. Peter,

    Thankyou for allowing me to keep raising issues that I believe impact the acceptance/rejection of the notions behind LENR & LENR+.

    In doing some recent looking up of patent related information I came across an article where David French (a retired patent attorney) had a go at explaining his understanding of the process whereby a H atom under particular circumstances can allow its electron to be captured by its proton thus turning both into a neutron which can then tunnel into adjacent atoms and cause transmutation such as with a surrounding lattice metal (Ni).

    What really got my attention was the debate by one very well know anti-LENR poster who I sshall refer to as JC. What I found challenging was how logical JC is and how repeatedly it was he who got attacked (mostly illogically & emotionally) by other pro-LENR posters. Too often they came across as unable to respond & thus reverting to fake arguments.

    This JC person is so well know I don't need to name him (and may already be banned from here). I am going to make one comment about JC and will admit in advance that my comment is IMHO an emotional one too - here it is: "JC is so forcefully logical that he logics people to death with his blog post debates". So, this comment by me has had me asking myself why this bothers me so much.

    It bothers me because JC tends to make so much more sense than almost anyone else I read. Again, having already raised the issue of right-brain vs left-brain. I see JC as the ultimate left-brain thinker. He doesn't need a right-brain at all. But does this mean my own logical thinking is telling me to give up on the notion of LENR because JC can argue his case so much more compellingly that most other people I come across.

    So, I believe the above conflict gets to the heart of why so many followers of LENR/LENR+ claims, are so hesitant.

    My rationalization of this situation has been to try to find a solid proof that someone really has a working demo of anomalous heat from Ni+H so that I can then say "well JC might be able to shoot LENR down using his logic but that is simply because his view of current science is so inflexible and fixed that he is not making reasonable allowances for new science".

    But, finding such a 'solid' proof is downright hard & tends to support JC's arguments. Andrea Rossi's antics tend to greatly reinforce the negative side.

    I have gone to all the major players (PIantelli patents & papers, DGT papers, Brillouin & SRI papers) looking for the solid proof but all I tend to find is claims & much debate over what they mean. I am not making good headway on this.

    The best I have come up with is that SRI would not be building the Brillouin big boiler if they did not have proof the small prototype worked, but that is hard to call solid.

    So I am left saying to myself. Just because JC can argue so persuasively against LENR/LENR+ is no reason to give up exploring the potential for it. What he appears to be achieving is blocking progress in researching it rather than encouraging it and is doing so using the threat of ultimate ridicule with the emotional put down of being able to say "I told you so".

    So in summary either:
    - We need a solid and widely accepted proof of repeatable anomalous heat, or
    - Being able to argue that JC's logic against LENR/LENR+ experiemntal success is in fact nothing more than his attempt to place a brick wall up to prevent progress in LENR/LENR+ research

    (Peter I trust you understand the issue I am trying to resolve - thanks D)

    1. I met this kind of guy, and I even suspect that some different named commentators are in fact the same Joshua. Anyway, among conspiracy theorist I find the same closed mind left-brainer, and I have to battle with myself to make the team work in my head (I'm french, moreover well educated).

      nassim nicholas taleb in antifragile, make a virtual debate between his antifragile practitioner (loving to screw the fragilistas because educating them is too hard), and the king of academic, Socrates as seen by Platon (the real Socrates seems to be more practical).

      read tha quote :

      "On the primacy of tradition and Naive Rationalism:

      FAT TONY: you are killing the things we can know but not express. And if I asked someone riding a bicycle just fine to give me the theory behind his bicycle riding, he would fall from it. By bullying and questioning people you confuse them and hurt them.”

      FAT TONY: “My dear Socrates … you know why they are putting you to death? It is because you make people feel stupid for blindly following habits, instincts, and traditions. You may be occasionally right. But you may confuse them about things they’ve been doing just fine without getting in trouble. You are destroying people’s illusions about themselves. You are taking the joy of ignorance out of the things we don’t understand. And you have no answer; you have no answer to offer them.”

      Things are too complicated to be expressed in words; by doing so, you kill humans. Or people— as with the green lumber— may be focusing on the right things but we are not good enough to figure it out intellectually.

      The payoff, what happens to you (the benefits or harm from it), is always the most important thing, not the event itself. Philosophers talk about truth and falsehood. People in life talk about payoff, exposure, and consequences (risks and rewards), hence fragility and antifragility. And sometimes philosophers and thinkers and those who study conflate Truth with risks and rewards

      You decide principally based on fragility, not probability. Or to rephrase, You decide principally based on fragility, not so much on True/ False.

      - See more at:

      What you say about left-brainers remind me funny/tragic result of some brain stroke.

      Some people not only lose the control of their left arm, but also invent complicated justificat for their arm being not their own.
      when the doctor says it is their own, they state that it is tha arm of the doctor... if the doctor answer that it is in the bed, they say that it is pruned on them... when the doctor show two arms, they state he have tree...

      Funny because that is exactly what I observe.

      it match also what fat Tony denounce.

      maybe like Fat Tony we should just try to fool the fooled.

      Another therapy, might be inspired by the medical therapy used for Somatoparaphrenia, "mirror".

      I use it on myself, and I see that making symmetry or translation (QM expert would say translation are a kind of symmetry), may make you accept the problem in your approach, showing you own asymmetry, ie your bias...
      I've observed, that I use some biased method to judge other questions, where I share the mainstream position. I understand how mainstream supporters thinks, why, and what is justified or not in that method of thinking.

    2. Dear Doug,

      I am not impressed by JC's arguments.
      However clearly we are enerering a stage
      where only facts can defeat poisoned words.