Greg & Ruby,
While this almost certainly may cause an offence, I wish to request that poetry and other arts not be attached to this web site. It goes to credibility. Why would a site dedicated to the serious science around LENR put a poem on the site? Is there no other scientific informaton that could be displayed? Why put a poem on the site, does the serious question of LENR need to be deflected into an irrelevant box? Science by its own nature is not to be muddied by emotion. To so undermines the credibility of the site. It looks silly. If you want to do a website dedicated to the arts or environmental heart strumming, create a different web site and post it there. This is nothing short of an embarrassment. How can I refer a serious scientist to this web site when to do so is to out and out convey a message of subjectivity so blatant as to disqualify any other actually meaningful scientific, dispassionate, rational discipline? Please stop this nonsense, it is a waste of energy, a deflection of purpose, a departure from logic, and a loss of objectivity.
:) I am glad it piques you. However, you and I are trained to think like Hegelians: Thesis and Anti-thesis are mixed up together to create synthesis. That is not paradox. Paradox takes the poles and brings them together in tension. The tension rather than a blurring the poles is the truth I refer to: an idea of Kierkegaard who said "Truth is often found in the tension of the Paradox". In this sort of situation, science at the poles is a purely rational, empiriclal objective. This is the ideal of empiricism as identified by David Hume and Emmanuel Kant. Not something muddied up by the Hegelian sythesis. You cannot have paradox without a clearly defined thesis and antithesis. Are we not looking to show the world we have a disciplined science? The third way detaches from both thesis and antithesis and becomes phase-changed into something different than either side of the dilemma. Hence the third way, that is neither one pole or the other--nor a synthesis thereof arises. It is unique as water is unique between ice and vapour. It is neither ice nor water, but exists in its own state. Liquid H2O is extremely rare in the universe, not common like we may think because we live here. Liquid water has no ice and no steam. Rossi has largely been set aside because he has blurred fact with fiction on more than one occasion. His fact isn't exactly fact anymore. We must be careful that the rest of LENR is not seen in the same light. Good impeccable science is our great hope of this. With Dr. Haggelstien's rigour where measurements are counted by angstroms, his accuracy and precision that win him an audience. Not winnowing minnows. Winnowing minnows? Seriously? Someone liked the rhyme then went back to justify it. This is a blurring of fact and fiction. If we are content with blurring, how can we distinguish between fact or fiction in the end? No, publishing minnows that can winnow is illustrative of my contention. If you don't accept the definition of science but on a whim can mix in some fiction, the product is not fact, and the goal of synthesis is really an illusion: Sythesis is another word for fiction instead.
I believe I understand why you feel you must publish this. It is to present some sort of holistic approach. But this is surely not the appropriate forum. Please reconsider this seriously. It makes what we do the laughing stock of science when there is no other discipline that needs credibility more. This is not a hate message. I don't hate your poems, art etc. I just don't see this as an appropriate forum.
Regards,
Owen Abrey
________________________
A Third Way
Rather than get hung up on the horns of a dilemma...seek truth in the tension of the paradox.
Ironic don't you think:
___________
