From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 04:02:42 BST
Sam,
On 27 Jul 2005 at 20:05, Sam Norton wrote:
> msh 7-27-05:
> You're trying to fabricate some connection between human character
> and human intellect, so that you can connect character to truth. God
> knows why : )
The line of argument goes:
1. The perception of truth is a function of the honesty of the perceiver. In
other words, high Quality intellectual patterns are only static latched by
other intellectual patterns structured on a virtuous basis.
msh 7-27-05:
This is the crucial premise, and its truth is not immediately obvious
to me. So, I think you need some evidence and argument to convince
me to accept P1. If you can, then I'll agree that truth is a
function of character.
> msh 7-27-05:
> You're suggesting that the data-fakers BELIEVED their own fabricated
> data. The MOQ explanation for what happened is far less exotic, I
> think. These guys willingly betrayed the intellectual level in order
> to reap social and biological benefits. This is where they failed
> the morality test. Their lack of honesty didn't somehow "cloud"
> their perception of truth; their lack of honesty caused them to
> conceal the truth for personal gain.
>
> Seems pretty clear to me.
sam 7-27-05:
Well, it's clearer to you than to me. I don't know Pons and Fleischmann well
enough to accuse them of being wilfully dishonest, and I thought it more
charitable to give them the benefit of the doubt.
msh 7-27-05:
I'm probably being harder on P&F than they deserve. They may simply
have been wrong, and were embarrassed about it. Maybe not. The
thing is, I was very interested in their "discovery" in 1989 because
I saw it as a way of decentralizing the power supply, making it
possible in theory at least for every one to fill their own power
needs from a beaker cooking away in the basement. A chance for us to
"get off the grid" of centralized and monopolistic electricity and
gas supply.
I began to doubt them when it became clear they would not supply
enough details about their experiments to allow other scientists to
duplicate the results. Based on the details that were made
available, a team at Caltech (California Institute of Technology)
tried every which way to produce a "cold fusion" reaction, and
failed. My feeling is, if it can't be done at Caltech, it's highly
unlikely that it happened at the University of Utah.
Anyway, sixteen years later, no one is producing energy from cold
fusion reactions. If P&F were capable of producing a chemical
reaction that produced more energy than it consumed, we'd have heard
about it by now.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient.
It's called 'rain'."
-- Michael McClary
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 08:24:53 BST