Ahh, Joseph, you have touched on the subject of Belief (by mentioning religion), which has been danced about repeatedly for hundreds of pages of postings on this LENR topic.Joseph Chikva wrote:I am afraid that you are babbling too about "verification" of non discovered phenomenon.cg66 wrote:I, like many here, want academic verification and I tend to ignore Rossi’s babbling and focus on what other researchers (like Celani) are doing.
All truly believing Christians wait for the Second Coming while Jews wait for only the First. And whether there was a Coming? Who knows? Who saw? And whether that will be in the future?
Good luck.
#1 - Confusion. Some want so badly for something new and good to be real that they simply believe, and will search for anything that fits with their belief system. This kind of thinking precludes rational thought or anything that resembles science, and seems to fit well with the cognitive bias known as Confirmation Bias. It's like an optical illusion, except instead of incorrectly interpreting visual data based on problems with the data or the limits of our eyes, it is problems with the abilities of (some) of our brains to process information rationally. Some simply believe in the scientific process (without understanding it) in the same fashion that others believe in religion. This is bad, as it's a state of confusion that detracts from a real scientific process, rational thought, and progress.
#2 - Corruption. Mixing a confused and broken scientific process with intellectual property, profits, and corporate/commercial interests seems to be the same as the selling of indulgences - a pollution of the original concept so complete that hypocrisy is an insufficient label. Sin isn't even sufficient to describe what intellectual property and corporate profits do with confused science - bad Karma, or simply evil, may be more accurate. The harm spreads in ways that are hard to predict or contain. Think Mayans using knowledge of astronomical events to extract religious offerings and human sacrifice from their bamboozled subjects.
#3 - rational thought. A scientific process that extracts principles of nature in a way that increases understanding. I don't care if this new understanding is protected as intellectual property and profited from in some fashion, as long as the understanding is real and based on rational thought.
Rossi falls somewhere between #1 and #2. Unfortunately, much University research also falls squarely in the realm of #2 as the publication and tenure process has become a den of corruption. Perhaps Rossi knows this and thinks he's circumventing it by the way he's doing things. In fact, he's not, he's just making things worse.