From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 31 2005 - 16:17:37 BST
Mark,
The P&F Slide Show ...
That's not the point, of course it doesn't prove anything in itself. I
happen to have studied Nobel-Prize-winning Josephson over a number of
years and he's a campaigner against scientific bigotry, and I have
deeper reasons for trusting his word. He's just pointing out that
bigotry, and showing that opposite evidence exists. He's not claiming
P&F Cold Fusion is true, just that there remains evidence both ways.
Innocent until proven guilty. The sceptics have it too easy - in
science as well as philosophy it seems. Easy to undermine someone
else's argument rather than be grown up about it and help build
something constructively.
Ian
On 7/31/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam, (Ian mentioned), and all,
>
> Ok, we're making progress.
>
> On 30 Jul 2005 at 11:55, Sam Norton wrote:
>
> msh 7-29-05:
> > And can we agree that it's fair to say that individual human beings
> > may be described as Bio-Dominant, Soc-Dominant, or Int-Dominant? It
> > seems clear that the character Lila, with her overriding interest in
> > food, drink, sex, is B-D. Rigel, with his emphasis on social
> > convention, and his fear that people like Lila pose a threat to
> > society, as well as his hostility toward the Intellectual level, can
> > be said to be S-D. Phaedrus is I-D, aloof, lost in his thoughts,
> > finding he must often drop down outta the clouds and force himself to
> > relate to others on the Bio and Soc levels. And can we agree that
> > none of this means that Lila and Rigel don't have thoughts, or that
> > Phaedrus never enjoys a good steak or sex?
>
> sam 7-30-05:
> Hmm. Not comfortable with this. I'd much rather talk about particular
> *actions* being B-D or S-D or whatever.
>
> <snip stuff I agree with>
>
> msh 7-30-05:
> Ok, I see your point. Let's agree that actions can be evaluated as B-
> D, S-D, I-D, and we'll forget about individuals. Just so we can be
> clear on how actions are to be classified, let's imagine that we are
> told by trusted authorities that our planet is being invaded by inter-
> galactic forces bent on destroying us. How would you classify the
> following actions:
>
> 1) Huddling in a a cave with a stockpile of guns and ammo
> 2) Passing laws to insure that inter-galactic travel is highly
> regulated
> 3) Seeking to verify that the the threat is real, before opting for
> 1, 2, or some other course of possibly exacerbating action.
>
> If we can agree that 1 is B-D, 2 is S-D, and 3 is I-D, then I think
> we can proceed.
>
>
> > Finally, I think there is a lot of confusion about the word
> > "intellectual," as can be seen by the dozens of ant-intellectual
> > posts that have occurred here in just the last several days. These
> > anti-intellectual posts seem, at times, to regard intellectuals as,
> > what, people with college degrees, university professors, people who
> > read a lot of difficult books? Or just people with whom the
> > intellectual-basher disagrees? There doesn't seem to be any clear
> > definition, yet the intellectual bashing that goes on here does have
> > a common underlying theme: the objectionable intellectual is the one
> > who disagrees with the clearly identifiable political agenda
> > personified by GWB in the US, and to a somewhat lesser extent, by
> > Blair in the UK.
>
> Did you really expect me to agree with this? My understanding of intellect
> has been on display quite a lot recently; I suspect it has a lot in common
> with your notion of FRH (when are we going to return to that thread by the
> way?); and I think the equation of the intellectual level with one or other
> political perspective is daft.
>
> <snip stuff I agree with>
>
> msh 7-30-05:
> Relax. I was taking a pop at the faux philosopher. Ok, let's keep
> the FRH in mind.
>
> >
> > So, I think the discussion will benefit if we can come to some
> > agreement about what is meant by the word "intellectual." Used as a
> > noun, I see any I-D individual as an "intellectual," but this does
> > not preclude a B-D or S-D from having higher quality "intellectual"
> > thoughts. Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have
> > disagreements about what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but,
> > among intellectuals, there is a certain procedure for working this
> > out for themselves: discussion and arguments, based on evidence,
> > derived from experience. B-D and S-D individuals can certainly
> > participate in such discussions, but their participation will be
> > fruitful only if they are willing to put their B-D S-D inclinations
> > on the back-burner, and accept the established protocols of
> > intellectual exchange. If they can't, or won't, then the discussion
> > will almost certainly degenerate to social-level finger-wagging
> > (Rigel) or exasperated insults (Lila).
>
> sam 7-30-05:
> I think you need to read the link which Ian posted, re Pons and
> Fleishchmann, and also the link I gave to Paul with an article from the
> Guardian.
>
> msh 7-30-05:
> I don't see the connection.
>
> I read both, and commented on the Guardian article in another post.
> As for the "defense" of P&F, I think you and Ian are way to easily
> impressed by a "slide-show" lecture presented as if it were
> documented scientific analysis. The only "slide" with potentially
> verifiable content was the table reporting the results of other
> scientists who claim to have conducted P&F type experiments measuring
> energy output greater than input. But, since no contact information
> is provided, not even an email address or web link, there is no way
> to confirm the nature of the experiments and what, if anything, they
> prove.
>
> Moreover, as I said in another post, if P&F were sincere in conveying
> their discovery to the scientific community they would have either
> provided ALL documentation necessary to replicate results or, at
> least, gotten their "hot" beaker running and opened their doors to
> third party evaluation. None of this happened. This fact, along
> with the fact that, sixteen years later, neither P&F or anyone else
> is verifibly producing so-called cold-fusion reactions seems, to me,
> pretty convincing evidence that, so far, the notion is untenable.
>
> sam 7-30-05:
> I would suggest a simpler description of the intellectual level:
> participation in the intellectual level is possible in so far as the
> participant can accept the truth "I might be wrong" (and that is an
> index of emotional maturity). There is then the possibility of a
> genuine intellectual exchange. As soon as someone tries to shut down
> a dialogue by appeal to prejudice then we have a reassertion of
> (normally) S-D behaviour, wouldn't you agree?
>
> msh 7-30-05:
> I don't see how anything in my protocol of intellectual discussion
> can be said to "shut down a dialogue by appeal to prejudice."
>
> I'm also not sure why emotional maturity should be a factor in
> arriving at truth, (is this one of those Eudaemonic things?), but I,
> for one, have no problem accepting the possibility that I might be
> wrong. I've been proved wrong so many times I have a big "W" branded
> on my ass. The thing is, you need to prove me wrong, using the
> intellectual protocol suggested above. Here's where I laid out the
> protocol:
>
> Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have disagreements about
> what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but, among intellectuals,
> there is a certain procedure for working this out for themselves:
> discussion and arguments, based on evidence, derived from experience.
>
> Can you accept this protocol? If so, we can proceed.
>
> Best
> 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
>
> I'm just trying to make a smudge on the collective unconscious.
> --David Letterman
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 21:27:33 BST