PRE-SCIENCE IS NOT PSEUDO-SCIENCE
"The Devil is in the details. But then, Who is in the great principles"?
Today things have converged and synerged in order to point to a great, evil, damaging confusion having its deep roots in bad thinking. There are surprisingly numerous thinking fallacies in circulation (no problem) but in action too- and this Trouble. A deadly combination of arrogant, hurried, simplistic, binary, meany, myopic, strongly post-logical thinking.
How I have understood it? In chronological order- first it came AXIL's answer to Ethan Siegel's paper cited here yesterday- putting his (Siegel's) ideas in a larger context see AXIL DIXIT. For Siegel- a very postlogical nuclear physicist LENR is dangerous pseudo-science.
Then Alexander Parkhomov has alluded to the fact that even in Russia the acceptance of LENR is not total, general and ideal yet. A rather strong organization is the "Commission of fight with pseudo-science and falsification of scientific research: http://klnran.ru/. Details difficult to understand for outsiders, we know LENR has not more to do with such skeptics society's. I, for example am waiting for the proper moment to write to an individual I admire, Michael Shermer who leads the SKEPTIC Magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/ and to tell him LENR is not for him. (I met him once, here in Cluj where he has presented his book: about why people believe weird things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things
translated in Romanian.) Michael, you will see, LENR is not weird - it is new and useful!
Then, no.3: a comment by a Finnish reader included the true statement that philosophy can contribute to pseudo-science"
My taxonomy of thinking modes in research: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html
is as old as Cold Fusion, I wrote it inspired by the great Romanian mathematics professor Solomon Marcus and published it in 1990 after the revolution. First it was rejected mainly due to the idea of postlogical thinking that smells of dictatorship.
The four modes of thinking refer to researchers- scientists in extended sense but the they are equally true for Sciences too!
Pre-logical science is in a primitive development stage, the basics are not discovered and known, the basic measurements are not done or the results are inconstant and contradictory; the unknowns dominate over the knowns, however the experimental part works. (this is the reason to call it a Science, however it is an unfinished science.)
Logical science the basics are already known as well as the cause-effect relationship and the science is developing, step-by-step incrementally in a few established directions.
Supra-logic science is an area of rapid progress, changes, breakthroughs , paradigm shifts- human creativity at its best.
Post-logical science is in a ripe stage, its truths, teachings, principles are official, must be accepted by everybody, become rigid, sometimes as dogmas claim to be prophetic, are considered to be valid outside their real area of temporary validity- and this goes up to bureaucratic, integrationist dictatorial science
These are not pure categories, lots of intermediary stages and strange combinations are possible.
But back to our problem: High Temperature Super conductivity is a pre-logical or for the sake of clarity- "pre-science" The experimental part works wonderfully but the explanations, theories are third category (explanatory) or second-(prohibitive), till now never predictive- first category ones. New classes of HTSConductors are discovered via Edison style material science ordeals. Besides experimental success, HTSC possesses the other specific virtue of a real science- continuous, measurable progress. Not comparable with the supra-logical sciences- see the magic Moore's Law in IT.
|Now let's take LENR, it is also a pre-science despite the experimental problems- if we take them separately- for the entire range of experiments the situation is better, so we can convince ourselves that LENR is a Pre-Science not a Pseudo-Science.|
And just now we have the greatest opportunity in the history of the field to create
the so necessary experimental certainty- so our LENR should rise to the status of
HTSC, with the Lugano-Parkhomov type replications.
Axil has also published
Tinkering with the weak and strong force in LENR: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/20/tinkering-with-the-weak-and-strong-force-in-lenr-axil-axil/
An Australian short paper about LENR+:
First news from the new Swedish LENR company NEOFIRE - the CEO, Peter Bjorkom is unfortunately ill, flue with high fever, after his recovery we will discuss starting on an excellent basis- he knows my blog and is aware of my LENR vs. LENR+ idea. Let's wish him fast recovery
Andrea Rossi says interesting things here:
February 20th, 2015 at 8:30 AM
We re studying the theoretical issues deriving from the report, that obviously is correct.
We are making intense theoretical work on the results and we are making a reconciliation, but so far we are not ready to give further information about this issue, which is also bound to restricted data.
February 19th, 2015 at 11:17 AM
Yes, electric power generation is one of the main R&D fields we are going through. We are oriented toward the classic Carnot Cycle, even if we are totally open to new commercial breakthroughs related to other systems.
This, in my opinion is an open ended statement- it does not say anything about the real achievements. But, with Rossi, you never know.. exactly.
An answer to Ethan Siegel's:
Sex redefined. The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that:
A fortress of the binary Thinking has fallen!