On the 'knowability' of theory.

[chrismb]

I would describe 5 types of folks who contemplate a thing like Polywell;

>>
1. those that don't believe it'll work and can't be bothered to analyse it because they have a faith based belief in its silliness.
2. those that don't believe it'll work but are prepared to consider a theoretical treatment to see which way the truth may lie

3. those that really and truly don't have any bias as to whether it'll work or not until all answers are in.

4. those that do believe it'll work and want to progress a theoretical treatment to see which way the truth may lie
5. those that do believe it'll work and can't be bothered to analyse it objectively because they have a faith based believe in its viability
>>

I would expect that we don't hear anything from type 1's [are there any out there reading this?], I'm surely in type 2, as I would say Art is. Type 5's are clearly the likes of TallDave.

To my mind, this whole FoI fiasco has shifted this forum membership map. The type 2's are now thinking "why bother". There has been a small movement of members from type 5 to type 4, and the type 4's are now contemplating whether a type 3 or 2 approach is in order.

I am rather suspecting that even MSimon might be heading from his “4.5”ish stance to a type 3.

It seems clear to me that this is so. The characteristic of a true scientist lies, I would suggest, in being a 'type 3', but in reality we all come with a hint of bias one way or the other and there has never been a suggestion that scientists are otherwise, though the ideal type 3 may be sought. (The type 3 scientist is a rare and potentially rather useless species because they tend to never come to a conclusion.)

From as far as I can ascertain, rnebel appears to be in the special “4b” category; those that do believe it'll work, and want to progress the theoretical treatment that will confirm this.

The point at which science steps over the line to faith is when bias exceeds objectivity. It is not so much that the FoI thing has increased bias, but it has diminished the objectivity. As there is now evidently so little that is objective, and that EMC2 have decided [for whatever reason, theirs are their own reasons to know, now] that there shall be no viable objective discussion in the public arena, so the FoI debacle had polarised this set of people, and for that reason there is now going to be very little to bind the full distribution of this forum together.

This is the 'ultimate' theory topic because it is what underlies the basis of what we, as sentient and scientific beings, consider to be 'knowable facts' as theory eludes to. There now appears to be no 'knowable facts' until we see Polywell power flowing on the grid, or spinning the props of a ship somewhere. So therefore I consider that there is now nothing more to discuss.

[MSimon]

My conversations with Rick (some of which would answer some of the FOI questions) give me a fair amount of confidence. I'm semi-privy to his proposed business model for instance.

So my initial - why won't he tell us - is somewhat mollified.

But unless he is willing to come out directly in the open about it I will say nothing.

The best I can do is tell you he has left hints.

So my confidence is somewhat greater than is warranted by the open discussion.

[TallDave]

As I've said many times before, I don't think it will work (roughly a 1 in 3 shot it does). I don't think we know why yet. I have no faith in the current analyses. I do think it's worth exploring, because the rewards if it does work are enormous.

As long as we're classifying people, I think chrismb is a type 6:

6) trolls who make wildly outlandish statements and accusations that generally aren't worth responding to, then absurdly claim to be the most reasonable people

That's my quota for troll-food today.

[Betruger]

I would describe 5 types of folks who contemplate a thing like Polywell;
4. those that don't believe it'll work but want to see progress a theoretical treatment to see which way the truth may lie

My edits/emphasies.

(The type 3 scientist is a rare and potentially rather useless species because they tend to never come to a conclusion.)

No, they just need a motivator to plow thru and feed on data and poop out useful unbiased assessments to start the next idea>test>assess>next idea cycle. Faced with the unknown you take working assumptions and see where they lead. Rinse repeat with every reasonable assumption. You then take inventory and see if there's some insight, in this set of possible explanations, for the unknown.

From as far as I can ascertain, rnebel appears to be in the special “4b” category; those that do believe it'll work, and want to progress the theoretical treatment that will confirm this.

Also special qualifier: belonging to those that have the data.

The point at which science steps over the line to faith is when bias exceeds objectivity. It is not so much that the FoI thing has increased bias, but it has diminished the objectivity. As there is now evidently so little that is objective, and that EMC2 have decided [for whatever reason, theirs are their own reasons to know, now] that there shall be no viable objective discussion in the public arena, so the FoI debacle had polarised this set of people, and for that reason there is now going to be very little to bind the full distribution of this forum together.

Bold 1 : Not increased, but changed people's POV. It's not just "more of the same".
Bold 2 : Why? What binding? The only binding is to reasoning with each other over an interest in what's going on with Polywell etc. Common ground is wanting to see if Polywell works. Some may choose to conclude it won't work based on accepted/predicted physics, grapevine noise (online discussions, comments from EMC2 personel, govt. echoes, etc) and so on, and thus satisfy their curiosity. E.G. Icarus' "stick a fork in this one" before seeing the data. This is the only saving grace to the FOI request IMO: We would see at least the peer review's verbatim (or near enough) conclusions. Unfortunately FOI is probably a rude means to the end, and not totally defendable when EMC2 have commited to a relatively very short time frame to conclusive results.

There now appears to be no 'knowable facts' until we see Polywell power flowing on the grid

That was always the case. There was nothing to "believe", only putting possible scenarios against one another to see which one was fittest to explain the unknowns. Entertaining those ideas doesn't require believing them. As an old lady put it - no faith, only convictions.

[chrismb]

As I've said many times before, I don't think it will work (roughly a 1 in 3 shot it does). I don't think we know why yet. I have no faith in the current analyses. I do think it's worth exploring, because the rewards if it does work are enormous.

As long as we're classifying people, I think chrismb is a type 6:

6) trolls who make wildly outlandish statements and accusations that generally aren't worth responding to, then absurdly claim to be the most reasonable people

That's my quota for troll-food today.

I will merely say (as merely as one possibly can, whilst trying to back out gracefully) that much as you have repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated that I am a forum "troll", the repetition does not, itself, make it true and nor have you ever got a 'rise' out of me with your childish attack. It is curious, also, that you are the only one who has ever suggested I am a troll (excepting for an earlier reference to me being the first 'tokamak troll' off icarus, which I took with agreeable amusement).

However... let us perform a literal decomposition on this, to your benefit as you don't seem to be able to let this go and insist on the last word, even when I am saying there is nothing more to discuss and that I have no desire to post further;

Let's look at the wiki definition;
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Have I gone off topic? Yes, agreed.
Have I posted inflammatory posts. I'm sure they are. How else do you rouse and alert people to their own casual indifference and illogic?
Have I provoked other users into an emotional response?....

...it's a bit bloody difficult not to if those with whom you are having a dialogue are cultists with a faith-based obsession, and you're questioning the very substance of their idolatory.

You wanna call me a troll? Sure, whatever floats your boat, buddy, and makes you feel real Tall. Just be clear on one thing; coming up with a 6th category that you used as an ad hominem attack on me personally was clearly off topic and as strongly intended to get an emotional response out of me as a post could be, so you have exposed yourself to the 'troll' accusation, good and proper. You're well and truly busted on throwing the "troll" term around.

Now, let me see, in all of that I still haven't managed to come up with an ad hominem attack back at you. It's not really in my nature to attack anyone personally, and if you can find a single example of an ad hominem attack from me, then you are free to repeat it and maximise on it to blow it out of all proportion. However, for now it is clearly your words that fall into the wiki definition of "trolling"... and that, as they say, is that.

[TallDave]

Oh, no, the guy who just described me as some sort of silly religious moron is upset about my "ad hominem" description of him as someone who goes around doing trollish things like claiming people are silly religious morons. If that title bothers you, maybe you could stop trolling. I've seen you be insightful and polite so I know you're capable.

You do understand repeatedly accusing people of cultish faith (especially people who have been careful to say this may not work, and is even likely not to work) is both an ad hominem and trollish?

I've exceeded my quota. I repent my sin by nominating this thread for deletion.

[chrismb]

Oh, no, the guy who just described me as some sort of silly religious moron

Where did I say that? Repeat the words where I said "you are a silly religious moron", or just go away and stop dreaming about what other people did or did not say.

So you want a thread deleted because *you've* taken it off topic?!

enuf said.......... I am now way too bored with this whole Polywell marlarky.

Maybe I have under-estimated rnebel. This has distracted me away from some real experiments where I'm actually doing stuff, instead of just blithering on about it. Yeah. I can see that once drawn into never-ending "I want the last word" debates on totally ficticious physics, it does drag you down. Sorry, rnebel, my mistake. I can see where you're at now..... It would've been a higher "veracity" score for EMC2 not to have blamed the Navy for restriction to info, better they say "We can't be bothered with this shyte - just look at how this thread has gone", but all the same I can now clearly see why you don't wanna get sucked into this forum. Your foresight:Good. My foresight:Poor.

I was trying to produce, here, a final piece of analysis on what 'theory' and 'scientific bias' has actually lead to, vis-a-vis Polywell, and you use it to launch an ad hominem attack on me.

I came to this forum to discuss some apparent show stoppers. I leave this forum more certain of those, and have picked up a few more along the way. I tried to kick off a few general intellectual discussion, and a few of you joined in with interesting responses. That gave me an outlet for a few rants and complaints about the crumbling civilisation of the West. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, guys.

So. File closed. Finit. The end. Over and out.

QRT

[Betruger]

The troll isn't just those things but, and not least, someone who'll purposefully derail conversation away from useful developments, regardless the means. Like injecting endless useless self-serving pedantry instead of just making the best of things. And moving on when all useful's said and done.

How else but inflame do you rouse people? You post concise and transparent counter arguments. Voltaire didn't engage people by pontificating ad nauseum but wrote irreverential but politely pertinent rhetoric so concise it was almost pregnant with meaning.

The faith based obsession bit is bullshit. Take some of your own advice. Repeating doesn't make truth. Entertaining something doesn't require believing it. Even if someone believes or merely very much wants to see Polywell work, it does not disqualify them from but only propells them to seek ways for it to work. Nothing in tampering that enthusiasm with scientific thoroughness disqualifies their ideas if those ideas are correct.

I still haven't managed to come up with an ad hominem attack back at you.

Who are you kidding? Almost all your rhetoric since a short while (like weeks or days, a month at most) after you started posting here's been condescending hyperbole. E.G.

Sure, whatever floats your boat, buddy, and makes you feel real Tall.

As soon as you figured Polywell was bust you started gesticulating with ridicule at how people were this or that on this forum. Compare with merely repeating and re-iterating from different angles why and how something doesn't work like e.g. Art Carlson has.

You know your rhetoric does nothing but turn people off but you insist coloring any truly constructive criticisms and insights with it. You're a pompous prick first, constructive debater distant second. I dread the idea that I might have to work with or even under someone like you. If I were boss I'd can you, or give you a choice between being fired, and taking a pay raise to can the self serving polemic tactics and focus on the actual work. MSimon nailed it saying you're not engineer but scientist.


Part 14, 2 minutes in. A special policy is mentioned at 2'40"
http://www.oninnovation.com/topics/deta ... lon%20Musk

[choff]

I'm one of those people who as almost no knowledge of Physics but experience with people. If it was just one eccentric scientist who worked on the concept I would doubt it. But what we have, is a device that the man who invented televison worked on at least the last ten years of his life, until the day he died. Also, the man who built fission rocket engines worked on it the last 17 years of his life, and basically fought for it from his death bed.

Not one scientist with significant accomplishments to their name, but two.
They had between them close to thirty years to figure out that it would not work, but failed to do so. Perhaps the latest generation of scientists is better educated and benefits from the expansion of knowledge from when they started out. As a layman, when I see senior scientists point us in a certain direction, I think it should be investigated.

[MSimon]

I'm one of those people who as almost no knowledge of Physics but experience with people. If it was just one eccentric scientist who worked on the concept I would doubt it. But what we have, is a device that the man who invented televison worked on at least the last ten years of his life, until the day he died. Also, the man who built fission rocket engines worked on it the last 17 years of his life, and basically fought for it from his death bed.

Not one scientist with significant accomplishments to their name, but two.
They had between them close to thirty years to figure out that it would not work, but failed to do so. Perhaps the latest generation of scientists is better educated and benefits from the expansion of knowledge from when they started out. As a layman, when I see senior scientists point us in a certain direction, I think it should be investigated.

It is some deeper than that. Nick Krall has been associated with Bussard for many years and still has a connection with EMC2.

And then Rick gave up (at least for the time being) promising work on POPS to work on Polywell as did his lab guy Park.

[rcain]

so, chrismb, your first love is 'sociology'. all is now clear.

jokes aside, the analysis is quite interesting. valid even. whether true is another question.

i would like to propose extending your taxonomy with perhaps:

(indexing at your discretion):: 'those who believe that it'll work if we want it to work and that the laws of physics are made to be broken, so long as no one wanders off the job'.

ulltimately, science discovers precisely what we want it to find. Polywell is only one of several contenders. they have very short time-lines and 'someone' will crack it, very soon.

'envisioning a positive outcome' is more likely to succeed in 'an outcome' than is 'disinterest'.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I'm a 3 but since work is progressing on Polywell by well qualified people it suggests to me that they see something there. Once they're satisfied that they can go to the next stage we will either get:

1. The data for us to consider whether or not it'll work
2. News of another, presumably larger contract to build a WB-D, which will suggest that they haven't found any show-stoppers.

These threads are becoming excuses for semantic arguments, which IMO is a form of trolling.

[rcain]

..so why contribute to them? (that was a rhetorical question btw).

[CaptainBeowulf]

Lol well it is also a good question. You'll notice I've actually contributed very little to the theory or news threads, since I lurked but didn't actually join until last fall, and there hasn't been new data since then. I'm also not a physicist, so although I can understand a fair bit I couldn't contribute a great deal to theory in any case. However, I like to see data-driven discussions here, and the snarky stuff kept over in general, so I guess I'm just getting grumpy. The other threads here on modeling and revisiting electron recirculation are going in the right direction. Nice to see Art posting more again. I'll try to avoid the urge to feed these threads...

Oh and in my last post I forgot:

3. The project is canceled, for whatever reason a lot of the data isn't released, but we can assume Polywell didn't work out or went deep black.