I have decided to make all the possible efforts and to ask for help from everybody who can contribute to a solution. Simultaneously I also realized that my campaign is marked by error- actually it is much better and efficient to use negative thinking first and reject all the harmful ideas and abandon all the misleading thinking practices from the field. A first example will show how necessary is this indeed, however I will try to go toward the Solution and in the same time to try to eliminate counter solutions.
It is about denying other people’s reality, or vision of reality. It is a radical method saying “you see a problem where it is no problem at all”, so if it you see a problem, it is YOUR problem. No problem as such exists, just you see it so. For example it is not realism considering that LENR has problems just because after almost 25 years it has not delivered the promised energy technology. Objectively thinking, considers Abd:
What you call "realism," Peter, is, from my point of view a dream, a fantasy, something made up. That is, "deep trouble" is not a reality. It's an interpretation coming out of standards created by the mind, whether individually or collectively. LENR is not a thing that can be "in trouble," it doesn't care, it's just a concept; underneath it may be a reality -- we think so -- but reality is never in trouble. I haven't notice that reality varies from day to day, have you?He is right from the general point of view of philosophy, or of Nature herself. I know that my position would be equally weak if I consider that poverty, hunger, AIDS, drugs, hatred groups, greenhouse gases, increasing inequality, arsenic poisoned water or illiteracy would be my problem not a problem per se. Superior thinking has more elevated criteria. LENR produces interesting science after all. My myopic judgment determines me to also consider that it is a ‘problem” if only one experiment from six gives measurable excess heat- actually it is a fact not a problem and scientific method can and has to be applied to LENR; parameter studies can be performed and the science thus obtained will be applied to develop even a technology- on serious scientific bases not via engineering and/or empirical methods. Furthermore my false reality pushes me to search for explanations of the natural low reproducibility of excess heat when any real scientist knows that this is inherent to such a noble but complex metal. It seems I am not familiar with probabilities and my reality, additionally of being primitively dualistic is overly deterministic. I love my limits and I am dedicated to LENR beyond any limits, I know well that humankind has an energy problem, needs more energy, cheaper, greener healthier and LENR could become a Great Solution. Unfortunately not scientifically odorized rhetoric and even not the fierce opposition by LENR deniers (a.k.a. skeptics) are the greatest obstacles to its transformation in a techno-progressive energy source. No, it is its premature discovery – science was not prepared for it, theories have explained only some aspects of it; from the multitude of forms in which it can appear it was found in the worst, weakest and most inert. Bad luck! Now with the application of systems theory to the problem and the use of nanoplasmonics this will change. One historical merit of the CF/LENR problem is its contribution to micro-calorimetry. As this essay shows, it has also helped the high art of scientific excuses; however telling that a problem is not existent is not a high performance. Presenting a problem as a solution is; reality reversal is better than reality denial and it is standard in politics. In science it is more difficult to ignore facts. You can explain away reality or substitute it with a “better” one but this does not help solving problems.