The Art of Objectivity With the E-Cat

The following post was submitted by E-Cat World reader Billy Jackson.

“While it’s true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we’ll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

“In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It’s a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain “diamonds” of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we’d have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the “obvious” craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor’s clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.”

William Beaty 2002

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”

The E-cat has inflamed our passions, ignited our imaginations, and challenged our preconceptions. I quote the above by William Beaty for a simple reason. It holds a lesson for us to take to heart. The E-cat and Andrea Rossi have either inspired you with possible visions of the future, or left a bitter taste in your mouth. Is it yet another fringe crackpot rearing its ugly head to deceive us all with the next wonder device? Or is it the first step into a new energy future?.

While its fate is yet undecided. We all eagerly await the much anticipated report on its authenticity. It has, without a doubt, raised much debate both here at E-Cat World and elsewhere. As tempers flare, or when emotional tirades trample anyone that disagrees, and condescension threatens the quality of our discourse from both sides, we must remind ourselves to remain objective.

The E-Cat will not be proven or disproven with emotional vitriol spewed at each other with our minds closed. It is astounding to me that the inventor, Andrea Rossi, seems to take criticism and challenges to his device and self better than the fans and opponents.

Science isn’t emotional. The E-Cat does not care if you believe, have faith, are inspired, detest, condemn, or disdain its existence. It simply is or is not. As the evidence compiles on one side or the other of this debate, we must learn to temper our expectations to match the realities of this invention and its possibilities, while not allowing our preconceived ideas of what we think we know to color our ability to challenge the accepted.

My challenge to both sides of our community is this. Challenge your preconceptions, but remain objective. leave the emotional diatribe at home. Challenge what you know you know, examine what you think you know, and be prepared to explore the possibilities of what you don’t know.

“Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as ‘conceptual necessities,’ etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.” — Albert Einstein

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I often wonder if the people who stated that heavier than air flight was impossible every looked up into the sky.

  • GreenWin

    What we’ve got here is… A festering inability to recognize evidence that our “reflective world” does not work. At least not for human beings. And when e.g. our educational programs fail to deliver the student we design, we blame the student. He is lazy. He is unfocused. He is uncooperative. He is spoiled, etc. Rarely do we ourselves step in front of our tarnished mirror to catch a glimpse of what was once a rigorously honest, loving soul. That soul is now cracked, grimed, a distortion of the original.

    The objective view is one unafraid of criticism, regardless how insignificant the voice. Instead, we bristle at the first thought of critique. And to demonstrate our superior position and intelligence we follow this example of good behavior:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

    Heaven forbid we utter those three magic words: “We were wrong.”

  • georgehants

    Fibber agreed, how do you vet these people who are doing the vetting.
    In the end only open-minded competent Research will show the Truth.
    Until science can grow-up enough to be able to competently and open-mindedly look at the Evidence for say UFO’s, then it will remain, rightly as just a bunch of incompetent debunkers and naysayers.

  • Omega Z

    You make me LMAO. :-)

    I know have the fear of Frank.

  • fritz194

    Even if the dialectic conception of disruptive developments in science seems to be constant – the way how we conspire changed dramatically by means of new ways to communicate.
    Maybe the case of CF/LENR could break up the frozen path of acceptance and conformity – and might reduce the length of such blocking periods mentioned by Albert ;-).
    At least we need some mechanism to break up this catch-22 between the major scientific journals and wikipedia. There is the need for a neutral platform to share ideas, concepts and papers globally. The situation that entire domains of research get marked as pathological or pseudo without any chance to get a review in combination with no coverage in WP because of the same “smell” – is not good for the scientific progress.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      the solution is not on a neutral platform that will never be neutral.

      the solution is in multiple platform, with multiple schools of thinking, with multiple bias, and with freedom to read the others ideas, publish ideas (in place that accept you, but there will always be a place), be peer reviewed…

      “against method” as says Feyerabend.

  • ecatworld

    lol, Billy — it wasn’t quite like that :)

  • georgehants

    Fibber, mostly agreed but no sir, “nay sayers” achieve absolutely nothing but, as in the case of Cold Fusion delay and distort the Truth.
    Only open-minded competent Research is applicable in every case of possible theory’s or discoveries.
    The ridiculous idea that anything except this Research is warranted is one of the major stupidities of science.
    Only Research will show up fraud not debunking or denial.
    Best.

  • MikeBucci

    This article belongs in the NY times. Wow just wow .

    • Gerrit

      The NY times is where objectivity stops.

  • Gerard McEk

    Well written article Frank, it reads like a poem!
    It is interesting to see how most of the believers of E-cat react on BLP Hydrino’s (including myself). It seems that there are many degrees in peoples believe what can be possible and what not. Maybe it depends on the level of education or simply your ‘technical feeling’?

    • georgehants

      I think the article was written by William Beaty 2002 Esq.

      • Ophelia Rump

        The article appears to have been written entirely by William Beaty and Albert Einstein.

        • georgehants

          Well, Billy Jackson has done a marvelous job in bringing together such Wonderful wisdom to upgrade the quality of these pages.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes I agree, and I also think he has masterfully defended himself against the disagreeable idiots. When they rip into his article with glee, they will shatter their teeth upon it.

    • georgehants

      Gerard, what possible significance can it have for what “people believe is possible”
      Only what is True has any meaning and in the past I have been under the misconception that is what science is there to find out.
      I have learnt that the search for Truth is very far from the goals of the average scientist.

      • Gerard McEk

        Everybody has a vision of how things work, without that you cannot anticipate on what is going to happen. I am sure you have also some ideas of e.g. the physics around you. No doubt they are based on your education and what you have learned during your life. Science should be a kind of consensus and schisms should be welcomed. However, most scientists make the consensus believe a dogma. It’s their stronghold in life and they preach their satanic consensus verses to everybody and if you do not believe, you are doomed.

        • georgehants

          Gerard, all agreed and what a sad story you paint.
          Only the Truth is real, everything else is worse than stamp collecting.

    • ecatworld

      The article was written by Billy Jackson — can’t take any credit here!

      • georgehants

        Silly me below have removed.
        Well done Billy Jackson.

  • Daniel Maris

    It either works or it doesn’t. No need to overcomplicate matters.

    The more complex issues are about how science is done. Is it a branch of free speech? Or is it some sort of sub-species of philosophy? Or is it simply applied maths? Should it be controlled? If so how? What is the role of peer review? Is peer review a good thing or a bad thing.

    Personally I think science is a branch of free speech – free inquiry always opposed to dogma in whatever forms. And I think peer review has become the master of science, not its servant.

    • Fortyniner

      @Daniel Maris “It either works or it doesn’t. No need to overcomplicate matters.”

      That pretty much says it all for me. In the present news-free zone we seem to be forgetting that it really doesn’t matter one whit what we think or what snidey comments we make to one another, what ‘scientists’ think or what snidey comments they publish, or even for that matter what Andrea Rossi thinks and what snidey comments he makes about the competition.

      All that matters is that a cold fusion device hits the market before it can be ring-fenced and absorbed by TPTB. In mercatu veritas.

      Actually, I thought everyone commenting here had been pretty well behaved of late. Hardly any blood on the walls at all (OK, Dr Mills may have taken a bit of a bashing, but he has his steadfast supporters).

      • georgehants

        Peter, so agree with Daniel, one only has to go back to the common sense of our ancestors to find a good proverb that covers every situation.
        ———
        Words are mere bubbles of water; deeds are drops of gold. — Tibetan

  • georgehants

    What a good topic.
    I will take exception to Admin saying —–
    “While it’s true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem,”
    I would like to see a few examples of this being given.
    I on the other hand can advise that a cursory investigation of the Internet will show that almost every belief of science is false or incomplete.
    The number of “established” theory’s from main-line science that have been proven in error are legion.
    This misconception most forcibly proven by Cold Fusion that official science has the remotest idea about anything beyond a few very basic things of a classical nature, that are cleverly exploited by very clever scientists to the benefit of all, is simply false.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Sun is not the center of the universe.

      • georgehants

        You unfortunately have missed the whole content of my post.
        I am afraid I cannot help you.
        Best

        • Nigel Appleton

          There was content?

          • georgehants

            Ah, another intelligent scientist, Ha.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Oh were you making an existentialist argument there in the summary sentence?

          Perhaps I did miss read you.
          My apologies. You are seeking proof of existence.

          You think, therefore you are. Were you not, there would be no one there to think the thought. We are living in the moment.

          It is a logical proof, more philosophical than scientific.

          The logic seems sound to me. The logical proof of existence being a circular logic bothers me, but that is the best we have.

          • georgehants

            Ophelia, Many thanks, but no I was not “You are seeking proof of existence.” our existence is indisputable in a personal sense, what is unknown is what that existence is.
            I thank you for moving beyond the ridicules nuts and bolts of the average scientist.
            Agreed, nothing is known and that is as you say ” that is the best we have.”.
            My argument is with the crazy scientists who try to falsely make out that they do know.
            When one starts from a position of total ignorance and is willing to admit it, then every little jewel of knowledge is a bonus.
            Best.

            • Ophelia Rump

              Georgehants, you do know that you will never be able to change them.

              We cannot change those around us, only ourselves.

              You must have much more interesting things to talk about than people you cannot change.

              You are wasting your time on “the crazy scientists who try to falsely make out that they do know.”

              Honestly I thought your idea of confronting scientists with existentialism is a brilliant idea.

              • georgehants

                Ha, Happily I live in a World more optimistic than you.
                We must simply agree to disagree, I think that “one day” this World will look with Wonder and Amazement at the unknown reality that we inhabit and will enjoy the search for the Truth.
                What can be more Wonderful than to progress beyond our petty wars and personal selfishness and to search for the Truth.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  Perhaps this time history will see the right things done.

    • Billy Jackson

      George that bit about 99% was a quote from an article by William Beaty. It was about those who were ridiculed at first then later proven correct.

      http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

      • georgehants

        Billy my honest reply seems to have disappeared.
        Will just then thank you for putting up such a good topic

        • Billy Jackson

          (yea i read the reply and now its gone)

          this was my response to it.

          on this i can agree. i don’t hold all scientist at fault. but when we
          allow personal agenda’s, self protection, and politics to enter our
          scientific debates we loose.

          • georgehants

            Billy and the horrific claws of capitalism that lead people to disregard the Truth to protect their personal endeavors in life.

      • georgehants

        Billy, then my sincere apologies to Admin, maybe we should let him stay a bit longer than.

    • Ivone

      Going off topic somewhat, but onto one that you frequently mention, Georgehants, is water and indoor sanitation availability. This lack condemns many in India to dwarfdom, as this horrific New York Times article shows. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/asia/poor-sanitation-in-india-may-afflict-well-fed-children-with-malnutrition.html

    • Hope4DBest

      George, can you give me a few examples of the “legion” of theories and beliefs of main-line science that have been proven in error?

      • georgehants

        Hope4DBest, go to the Internet, enter,( scientific theories, beliefs, wrong.)