Sunday, June 16, 2013


My dear readers: PLEASE HELP!

This writing can become a real source of inspiration and information only with your help – via pro- and contra-comments.
The subject of it is difficult and “sensitive” and it is beyond the
judgment of a single person, having a limited, specific professional experience. I ask you for a small “wisdom of the crowds” creative exercise action.
I have confessed that my favorite meta-sport is swimming counter=stream, therefore for me it is a problem to decide in which direction to swim in stagnant water

What is this all about?
One author I am admiring much, first off all for his superior and deep understanding of the world’s complexity see e.g. is the Canadian ecologist, environmental philosopher and writer, Dave Pollard who edits “How To Save The World” This admiration does not mean that I share his ideas
But I warmly recommend you to systematically study his newsletter.

This week Dave has published a paper:


The Dangers of Scientism and the Fear of the Unknowable  PLEASE READ IT WITHOUT PREJUDICES!


Actually it is a value-added presentation of the book: “The Science Delusion” by Curtis White. The book is in way, an echo of “The God Delusion” of Richard Dawkins. The target of these writing is SCIENTISM see it defined and described here: Scientism states that science is omniscient and the scientific method is omnipotent.


Pollard considers that scientism is untenable because:

“science is, after all, nothing more than the creation of approximate, limited and ever-changing models and metaphors of some aspects of reality, that are often interesting and sometimes (enormously) useful”.

The deep source of scientism is the ideology of certainty and
the intolerance (even loathing) we humans have for complexity and for the unknowability of most of reality says Pollard.

Scientism is absolutization and dogmatization of science mirroring the same standard procedures applied for religion(s); there exists some 11,500 uniquely true religions functioning as perfect sources of meaning of life and organizers of life.
Scientism is bad for science but it is also a more general menace:

The consequence of the new scientism dogma goes far beyond the censorship and dismissal of more creative and open inquiry; as it reinforces the equally rigid, simplistic and reductionist political, social and economic dogma of our culture, it becomes a force for tyranny, as White explains.

The paper and the book carry a message of danger for progress, a serious warning. One smart comment about the scientism says:
their faith is actually a betrayal of the scientific method Scientism is the new despot, if we have no other values.

Personal comments

Obviously, you can read these, but I am interested in your ideas; metaphorically speaking I want to know how broad is the spectrum of opinions regarding the nakedness of the Emperor (LENR classic style).

Life in an oppressive society has made me an expert in dogmas, mainly political ones- but it is well known that dogmas are very contagious and penetrate all the sectors of society and individual life. The Romanian poet, Lucian Blaga has stated: “Every dogma is an idea, often malefic, owning all the weapons of terror.”

Years ago, in an editorial about dogma I wrote:”Man's pathological passion for certainty exposes him to major risks. If he ceases to think about the fundamental issues with his very own brain, he will become only a fraction of what he could be. He will be de-personalized in more senses. He will not become only an other man, but also other men- those who have forced him to transfusion of dogmas.

Now, back to scientism, Pollard and Curtis White. A word that is not used and interpreted properly in my opinion is "extremist".
Actually extremists are those who push a concept, idea, ideology
up to its limits- but till inside some tolerable, non-evil behavior. They do good things and bad things but still not criminal things.
They stop at some boarders but do not go further. Fascists, communists, terrorists, active fundamentalists are worse than extremists they do not respect elementary rules of morality, decency, common good sense.
The practicians of scientism are extremists, but so is Pollard and Curtis White. Pollard’s ecologism and preoccupation with the
collapse of our civilization seen as something inexorable and our return to Nature are signs of a benevolent extremism- are exaggerations.
White has given an ultra-provocative title to his book calling science a delusion. Actually science is the best thing we have created, however it has weaknesses, limits, it is imperfect but it is
continually improving, progressing, correcting errors and creating new and new tools, concepts, means and methods.

Human science is new and the shadows of the Dark Ages are still omnipresent. And the task of the science(s) is formidable just because the reality it explores and has to understand is so complex and dynamic at all levels.
Probably you have ignored to read but this tells us about a vital rule of life and science- you (and science) will almost never have all the conditions and tools to fulfill a task, solve a problem. Engineers,

great entrepreneurs and great generals know this well. In research this is common sense: “First you jump off the cliff and build your wings on the way down.” (Ray Bradbury)

Unfortunately many scientists have developed a belief that we can understand everything, we have theories for all the knowable phenomena. However this is simply, tragically and increasingly not true. It is not entirely bad, because it supports the idea that any problem can be solved. An other facet of the problem is the idea that any problem can be solved purely scientifically. Historically we have had similar cases of thinking that everything can be solved by an inspired philosophy or by perfect logic; the key of disaster is the…premises.

Dave Pollard and Curtis White are inspiring for the problem part of scientism, however about the solution they allude mainly to a more holistic view (correct!) including art (OK, but incomplete)
And excluding what they call technophilia and the concept of technological progress.
Their extremist view seems to interfere with the understanding
of the essence of technology—not only a problem solver that creates new problems when applied inadequately but, first of all
creating a basis for solving all the major problems. No alternative to this, a world without technology is Hell.

Technology (mon amour!) has a Grand Plan:

“Systematically improving the processes of transport, transfer and transformation of matter, energy and information that create something useful for people.”

In the frame of this, you can understand technological progress that happens now all the time, everywhere on the Earth. I recommend you to use this as a frame of realizing what happens now in LENR and beyond.  

I believe and have repeatedly told that in the case of LENR technology is an equal rights partner of science-see e.g.
Perhaps the positions had been radicalized in meantime, many of my respected good friends consider that LENR has to be first understood and later developed based on this understanding, however I think that these two actions have to be combined and performed simultaneously, this being realistic, pragmatic
and possible.

I wish that one day; Dave Pollard will use a Hyperion heater in his pre-Collapse flat and think that technology can be good for people and for the environment too.

Questions for you  

Please forget about my opinion, consider me an extremist-technologist and tell exactly what do you think;

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

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

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

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

Q5. What will be the global situation of the field in 1, 3, 5 years from now?

Thank you in the name of the Cold Fusion Energy Dream!



  1. Peter, your attempt to resuscitate conventional science from its comatose like slumber is commendable. It is indeed a worthy task, because the stakes for humanity are so great.

    Your insistent poking with a stick to the ribs of science may fail to arouse them, it may be necessary to place a burning match under the feet of the gatekeepers of science to get them to see what is happening to their crumbling foundations.

    When Rossi and DFG present convincing hardware in the near future, this will force all of us to reevaluate how we have been utilizing the rigid, inflexible scientific, institutional structures imposed upon leading-edge,emergent discoveries.

  2. Yes.Yes.Yes.

  3. I'm reading Nassim Nicholas taleb and he agree with science as being a tool to transform past observation into prediction that are doomed to be broken with time.

    He believe in the "via negativa", the way of removing (bad) things, instead of adding things.

    Scientific method, like democracy, is good when removing the evil. Scientific method may remove evident errors, bad dogma, like democracy can remove most dictators. It is an error when it is capturing all the landscape of options...

    I walk personally in a strange landscape of pseudo-science which is popular, and proven facts which are rejected like LENR and others.
    What I notice is not the scientific method is the problem, but it is priest of the scientific method, who like the priest of catholic church in the 13th century, talk much of scientific method and violate deeply the basic commandment...
    the worst is that most critics of those scientist are even more corrupted with dogma.
    Remember how even LENR community was reluctant to admit NiH, because H fusion seems impossible, unlike DD...

    today most of the problem is that many dominant scientific consensus are simply based on theory (stuck to theory, to numerical models, to unproven hypothesis) to rejects facts.

    Like LENR pretended not theoretically impossible, while it is simply not the problem, the real problem with science is not that scientific method is bad, but not respected.

    that wikipravda-rejected article
    show how unscientific have became the scientific community...

    Currently I am talking on the energy collective, and the example is after bashing my remarks as pseudo-science, they bash widom-larsen....
    in my documents I explicitly says that no theory works, that WL also, and it is the problem, and I refer to the facts...
    but they stick to theoretical question...
    and that is always SO:

    moreover they are incompetent even in theory, logic, and of course in scientific method.

    I live in a country where school prepare you to that horror, and hopefully tinkering, camping, extreme sports, and engineering school make me more pragmatic...
    Anyway I love theory, but like chocolate and cognac, I know it is bad to abuse of it.

  4. Peter
    IMHO you are raising with these Questions issues requiring answers that can explain CF/LENR static over the last 24 years.

    We do not have to assume any conspiracy theory to explain the static of "LENR". Thinking on complexity as a matter of difficult linearity or statistical issues is a cultural problem/barrier, strongly embedded within the way of thinking of scientific methods since Newton. This obviously has many implications with the Kolemos domination on how society and economies are "engineered" and the crisis on many fields such as physics to economy or politics. (An excellent recent example to the last is the Shutting down of the Greek public TV and Radio stations whilst its solution may be found the way people reacted defending democracy (again) protecting journalists keep broadcasting in occupied TV public stations, whilst Kolemos shows his violent face just around the corner, in Instabul's Taxim square).

    Newtonian thought (also dominating GR and QM) triggered a progressive revolution to all levels of human rational way of thinking and acting (aka decision making). But since the 60s the signs that this school of thought has reached its limits are strong, specially after E. Lorentz reintroduction of Poincare early ideas on chaos creativity through a new understanding level of rationalism.

    Most of the scientists involved in edge scientific fields, such as in CF/LENR case, either ignore or deny to follow any such methodological path extending analytic capabilities and synthesis. Please recall the parallel monologues in all ICCFs and forum debates over all these years. Facing that challenge "our" scientists usually create a protective firewall to their status quo of thinking rejecting synthesis claiming sometimes "that is philosophy", aka something dark or dirty for our purity. But fortunately for science this is not the case as mathematics are involved again in this higher level determinism that may guide the next revolutionary ideas to more creative paths fighting Kolemos. Till the next bottleneck maybe waiting to show up later somewhere out there.

    Lee Smolin's recent lecture is describing the framework of this new dichotomy (aka decision point) of modern science in an excellent way, starting from the perspective of theoretical physics. He raises actually the same questions as these in your fine article in

    So, before such cultural barrier is overcomed, let us focus to the development the new telescope required.

    1. Dear Mary,

      This paper and the answers of my reader are important for me, I want to know the cnnection between scientism and LENR. It is disturbing when somebody is abotaging my work
      with questions outisde the subject. There are many other oublications where you can repeat and re repeat the same questions with the verbal inventivity of a stuttering cuckoo.
      The comment here are about scientism, including the extended sense of the word. Hai capito, cara signora?

    2. Hi Peter,

      Sorry if you think I am disrupting your discussion. However, I thought you opened the window to discussing the Hyperion by writing this:

      " I wish that one day; Dave Pollard will use a Hyperion heater in his pre-Collapse flat and think that technology can be good for people and for the environment too."

      I don't think the Hyperion exists as a working LENR device. I think it's a hoax. That's where all the actual evidence so far points. And Defkalion apparently has not told the truth. That was my point. Mr. H. is free to repudiate that as best he can.

      I'd be happy to engage him elsewhere but unfortunately, this seems to be the only place where he writes and I can reply. If you know a better place to address the redoubtable Mr. H., I'd be happy to comply.

      Defkalion, as you know, closed their forum and deleted all the messages. Otherwise we could discuss Hyperion there, couldn't we? Is that what an honest and open company does?

      With best regards,



    4. MaryYugo

      IMHO your posts too often come across as a stain on the purity of man's greater quests for awareness and knowledge. There is no reward for single highhandedly seeking to squash innovation and greater awareness.

      You appear obsessed over a technicality that is now frozen in time (2011) due to circumstances and forces that were at that time, essentially unrelated to the technology but almost entirely related to one inventor's inability to deliver commercialization of his discovery and the near fatal effect that had on someone else's serious business potential.

      The reality right now (today) is that we all know (ad nauseam) what *you* think of the various LENR claims. You regard them as bunkum. So obsessively repeating your diatribe archives nothing here even if in 2 years time your POV 'appears' to be more correct.

      There are people who believe the notion of LENR (or whatever other name it gets called) is worth exploring deeply to find out if indeed the many experiments producing anomalous heat can be identified, quantified and even commercialized.

      It is an honorable quest.

      I doubt that few would disagree with anyone questioning a person's claims where the claimant is in parallel exhibiting behavior that is *highly* suspect & sadly we have one among us who indeed is doing so. People don't always behave the way we all would like.

      So, as Peter has highlighted, Scientism when preached against the so called 'scientifically impossible' from the high pulpit of scientific righteousness and the one-true-way, becomes as obnoxious and intensely boring and repressive as any dictatorship a religion or political ideology can deliver. IMHO you are on your own one man mission in this regard.

      So dear MaryYugo (et al) let those of us who believe scientific boundaries should be explored deeply, and pushed back where they can be, carry on in our collective exploratory delusion & do try to see that many of us are just as capable of monitoring the fraud factor as good as anyone else can whilst pitting the known against the unknown.



  5. Hi Peter.

    There will always be dogmatic people. Such people are drawn to large institutional systems that reward and make use of this human impulse. Institutions such as the church, national governmental service, and the college academy.

    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.

    This is not a new thing. Your field is no different than any other new physical reality that is trying to insert itself into the human consciousness. I would say, having some benchtop experience with LENR and related researchers, that 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 eveything is a fraud and a cheat.

    At some point, one hopes enough people will stop acting like four year olds and take the ideas seriously enough to address them fully and without prejudice. Neither side is in my humble opinion.

  6. Peter

    The problem I see in the many discussions on LENR and in particular on the eCat are that we are experiencing some conflicting elements of a complex and difficult situation.

    It does seem to me to be bringing out the worst debating behavior and attitudes I have seen in a long while.

    I have seen LENR/CF debaters/protagonists form into factions and what I am seeing in particular is clusters of right brained 'dreamers' grouping and railing against the ridicule aimed at them from left brained 'precisionists'.
    Dreaming is essential to hope and man can be at his best dreaming about the things he might do. Precisionists (for want of a better description) are IMHO best at engineering (where things have to be done 'right' (which in turn means do things within set laws/rules and boundaries).

    If we focus on these 2 dominant (IMHO) groups - thus far there are extremists in both who IMHO have fostered the creation of an overlapping third and transient group who are appalled at the extremists in the other 2 main groups (fit me in here).

    There are names from both sides of the issue that IMHO bring disgrace to both POVs.

    An obvious problem though is when innovation and genuine exploration gets tainted by charlatans or dreamers to become charlatans or inventors who do too. People who eventually (if not immediately) see devious opportunities to exploit claims for new *highly desirable* technologies/science. Motivations for such people can be many but one theme seems to me to be where a person may start out with a genuine belief they can 'open up' new technologies/science but over time begin to realise they can't, but can see that many others don't grasp this at all and thus such a person may seek to set up ways they can fund and maintain a very comfortable lifestyle pretending they are still working on the (in reality) impossible dream. I would cite Paul Moller of Moller International as a classic example. His web site still has ringing endorsements from past and current NASA administrators. He has been inventing a flawed flying car for over 40 years & recently shifted to China due to reality sinking in back in his native USA.

    IMHO Skepticism is essential and it can be argued that skepticism should have priority over blind belief in great claims for 'new' science no matter who they come from.

    When someone makes extraordinary claims (am thinking of Andrea Rossi here), then plays 'obvious' games with publicity and fanbase manipulation, they can do incredible harm that then takes perhaps a new generation or more to overcome.

    Perhaps I can finish with a comment that Andrea Rossi's IMHO appalling behavior has done much to drive me towards very strong skepticism when at heart am an admirer of great dreams and energetic innovation.


    1. Dr. Linus Pauling said:

      “The way to get good ideas is to get lots of ideas, and throw the bad ones away”

      You must be both a 'dreamer' and a left brained 'precisionists'.

  7. A theory connects the dots. A theory connects otherwise unrelated "facts." Science makes a concerted effort to keep the dots that it uses restricted to its specialized area of expertise.

    If the dots are spread out over dozens of unrelated areas, science does not want to deal with such an unwieldy job.

    Theories also make predictions about new data. They tell us what new data we can expect to find under specific conditions.

    If a theory predicts correctly (in other words, if the theory tells us what to look for and we find it), then we have more confidence in that theory. If a theory predicts incorrectly (we don't find what the theory predicts that we should find), then confidence in the theory should be reduced. Unfortunately, for good psychological reasons, many researchers tend to hang on to their pet theories long after the data show that they are inadequate.

    When this new data is outside of the expertise of the researcher, the researcher ignores the data because he does not want to put in the time to become an expert in yet another field of study that he has no interest in.

    To find the "theory" picture that best describes as set of "fact" dots, we start with an educated guess about what the picture might be, based on the few dot "facts" we have. This first try has to be quite simple, because we know little on which to base it. This is a first effort at a theory. If the picture happens to turn out to be the correct one (or close to correct), then it should tell us where to find new dot "facts" to fill in the picture "theory". That is, the theory makes predictions.

    We then test the predictions by looking for new dot "facts" on the lines that form our picture "theory". If our guess about the picture is correct, then we find new dot "facts" where the picture tells us to look. In other words, if the picture "theory" is correct, then it will predict accurately where to find new dot "facts".

    To find the answer, the only thing that is important is the dots, not personal prejudices or professional advancement, or the amount of work required to understand the dots, or the crazy thing that the dots imply.

    Unfortunately, a lot of different pictures will fit a few dot "facts," several other pictures will also make the same prediction. In fact, the most efficient way of developing a good theory is to collect data "facts," that exclude one or more from among several competing ideas.

    Early in the development of a science, a theory's predictions are often too vague to be excluded easily by new data. In our dot-to-dot model, a vague theory is like a picture that has very thick lines. Because the lines are so thick (because the predictions are vague), you often can't tell whether a theory really predicted a new dot "fact".

    So you have to find more dot "fact" related to the question that you are studying and make your theory make less vague, so it can generate more accurate predictions. In the model, the lines have to be thinner, so that they will predict more accurately where the dot "facts" should lie.

    When your theory begins to make some more specific predictions, you will gain some confidence that you have the right picture theory. If you are quite smart you can look for dot "facts" in such a way that you can exclude some possible picture theories.

    I have noticed that most LENR theorists ignore the dots that they do not like.

    And scientists don’t accept the dots that others put in front of their faces; they castigate these hapless and well intentioned messengers as kooks.

    Until people accept these dots no matter how many of their signature theories that they must relegate to the trash can, then LENR will not move forward in the dot discovery venture and the theories that describe them.

  8. Here is a prediction: after NI Week and ICCF18 in July and August, we still won't have a credible demonstration or experiment from Defkalion to prove that they have any technology at all, much less the high power reactors that they have claimed since early 2011 and have never had properly shown or tested.

    And Rossi is never going to allow the installation of an ecat power plant in any independent company where it can be properly measured and tested. Not in the fall of 2013, not ever. At best, he will show something run by one of his shills. Most likely he will make an excuse explaining why some mysterious people have made it impossible for him to show anything. And then, he'll promise something new and dramatic... in six months more. Want to bet?

    1. MaryYugo

      What is your real point (bet) ?

      1) Is it that the notion of electron/proton tunneling/capture for atoms of H adsorbed into an Ni lattice, and agitated by various means, won't behave in ways not fully understood by current science, and which may result in a net energy release ?


      2) Is it that the companies working on commercializing such devices won't be ready by Y E 2103 (or ever) ?

      If it is the 1st then your bet is pure Scientism at its worst, if it is the 2nd I'll join in your side of the bet but only go as far as to say year end 2014.


    2. My point is vastly simpler than that. It's that Defkalion and Rossi won't allow proper tests and behave like scammers. And it's extremely easy to prove their claims because of the large power levels. Why anyone believes anything they say is a total mystery to me.

      I do not generalize to LENR in general, whether for research or commercialization.

    3. Maryyugo

      And all along there was I thinking the thread was about 'LENR AND SCIENTISM'

      So, we can agree it is being hijacked (once again).

      Cheers DSM

    4. the problem with you MY, is that whan facing data you don't see it and repeat your beliefs.

      The test you asked was done for Nelson, and unlike you he was happy.
      The biggest data in that test is Nelson being happy to be free to test what he wanted...

      That you are not invited to the demo can be understood as you lack of any ability to see fact that don't follow your beliefs.

      That I am not is also logical since you won't believe in me.
      It seems enough for the partners. And partners have reason not to tell you they are partners.

      given the awfull bullying in the past against cold fusion researchers, and the hysteria around LENR, they probably work in Manhattan project mode...

      same for rossi. only one detail have not been tested, and it could have been... that is enough.

      absence of evidence is not proof of fraud.
      You inability to see facts is however a huge evidence of mental bias.

      and please stop repeating those lies with so much assertive language.

    5. Alain, you are sooooooooooooooo naive. Someone's opinion is not "data"! Nelson did not conduct a proper test. According to his own report, Nelson did not witness a *proper* test. There is no valid reason for "partners" if they exist, not to reveal who they are. Defkalion is hardly a secure operation. They occupy a small office over a beer bar and rent a bit of lab space from a university. Anyone can walk in, can't they? No secrets there. Why not say who their illustrious partners are? Unless they don't exist!

    6. Mary,
      a) You are offending my friend Alain

      b) I cannot tolerate small caliber lies as what you say
      about Defkalion's offices
      Actually they have:
      850sqm in total in Vancouver, 600 is lab space.
      500sqm in Milan lab only
      750 sqm in Athens lab plus 2500sqm industrial area for heavy testing.
      As for the bar in the basement, actually there are 3 restaurants, as Yaletown is the business center in Vancouver.
      Your comments will not more published on my blog and the
      easy solution is for you to not write. I think that I was
      really tolerant.

    7. AW, c'mon, Peter. Don't be such a grump. Sorry if Alain finds it offensive to be reminded that Nelson's opinions isn't data. As for the beer, I got the idea from this Google street view of Defkalion's address. There is no mistaking the big beer truck out front. See this image:

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. Maryyugo

      If Peter decides to ban you I won't complain. Such a result would be IMHO entirely self inflicted.

      Reason I say this is that you are IMHO a deliberate and selfish spoiler. You ignored the theme Peter quite reasonably sought commentary on. You honed in on your pet obsession (a kind description) and you are simply disrespectful. I also agree with Peter that you weave 'little lies' into your posts such as the DGT premises garbage.

      But I do want to thank you for the link to the nickelpower story - I have made good use of that information in posts elsewhere.


    10. @all
      No problem about me. I'm a bit passionate sometimes too... Only the one who never start a flame, may blame the troll.
      A claim is a data in my human factor logic system.

      A public claim, confirmed to a known third party commit the speaker.

      In my logic framework, it have more value, when well used (a claim does not prove reality, it claim commitment, opinion), than a report, a video.

      primates including humans and kids above 5, and endowed with "theory of thought". This mean that we understand that people have point of view, opinion, beliefs, and that is data to understand or predict their behavior, to know what they have seen and understood.

      We have competence to analyse behavior an, like in any science, to judge which "theory of thought" is compatible with facts.

      The "theory of games" is also interesting in understanding and predicting behaviors.

      There are some logic puzzles in some magazine who exploit that logic framework.

      an example is that when an executive in NASA, or Energaya, or NI, commit about something flagged as fringe, he does it with a strategy, and according to data he have.

      When a company allow a third party-test all the data about what the company believe are in the allowed tests.

      I don't need to smell the blood, when I see the sharks coming.

      The danger is that the analysis should be limited to simple short-sighted reasoning, since rationality is real but limited.

      note that for you mary it would be very useful to learn that methodology, since you systematically deny all reality to any kind of experiments (I imagine that it is true only for data that don't please you, but since LENR-deniers have not the least data to prove their hypothesis I cannot see if you would deny also experimental data that follow your prejudices).

      So without those experimental data, and without using human factor data, you will have no data at all...

      so no reason to talk.

      I admit that I have no hope to convince you, nor to educate you in human factor. I am talking similarly to a PhD in physics who cannot understand that applying freespace physics to rule out a lattice QM effect is like denying the capacity of rabbit to move in earth using aerodynamic equation in earth. He does not accept either that if something cannot be explained, it is not an evidence it is false, and sure it cannot be used to deny a fact. He does not either understand that claims of artifact have to be refutable, and afterward proven with experimental results.

      Thomas Kuhn explain why highly educated people can be so blind. It is because blindness is consequence of education, like the blinders of a horse, to allow the researcher to focus on his mission, to follow his paradigm, and to stop questioning or doubting about the foundation of his community.

      My only hope, and thanks you for that, is to explain to innocent reader, who may be naively following you thinking procedure, that it is structurally flawed, yet very common (like optical illusion).

      best regards, and thanks for being a dynamic sparing partner...

      Anyway the match seems not so creative, and soon I may get bored.

      I say you that there is an elephant in the living room, and you say me that it is impossible, that the camera is lying, that the guest are drunk because the tea may contain alcohol, that claim is not evidence, that you don't see the elephant with your microscope, that grey surface is just a grey sofa...

      We don't live in the same plane of reality. It is boxing against a shadow.

      That is the essence of scientism, like many religion, ideology, groupthink or superstition, that critics are integrated in the theory as structurally meaningless,unreal, as if they were not in the same reality plane.

  9. This came across to me as a relevant comment (taken from Peter's link at the top - 'The Dangers of Scientism and the Fear of the Unknowable') ...

    "The consequence of the new scientism dogma goes far beyond the censorship and dismissal of more creative and open inquiry; as it reinforces the equally rigid, simplistic and reductionist political, social and economic dogma of our culture, it becomes a force for tyranny"



  10. You seems not to understand what is human factor.

    Key data is not the calorimetry, but the freedom.

    if you cannot understand that, stop talking of fraud,and other human activities like business, research, bullying.


    Bad humor is an unpardonable crime; from now on if I
    will need your venom, I will go to OTHER blogs
    Finita la commedia, do NOT write more, please!