You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Artooweaboo 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I was more expecting a few authors whose published work was poorly received because they did not toe the party line. Or something along the lines of wattsupwiththat.

However, in looking at the mars rover 'mystery' video, something I have a pretty good understanding of--- unlike archaeology, they are substantially overselling the mysteriousness of it. The video states that NASA "fails to consider any new theoretical possibilities." Why would they? The video itself covers a few of the entirely reasonable and understood factors that could work individually, or together, to provide the observed result. That is, the rover has lasted much longer than anticipated because the solar panels have managed to stay sufficiently clean. IMO, NASA doesn't say it was X, because the data they have doesn't conclusively prove it. However, they have a pretty darn good idea about what caused the panels to stay clean and that is good enough. When you have a simple explanation, that fits easily within the realm of reality, why would you go creating possibilities that require new physics, or something unbelievable.

Pollack's work seems interesting and reasonable from what I am able to skim from a few of his published papers. I think you are onto something when you say *snip because doing so endangers their current funding or area of expertise. This is true to some degree in my experience. In submitting a paper you can suggest to the editor a few names of researchers that you would like to review the paper. It is somewhat a game because you should choose someone who can actually understand your assertions while also not a competitor for grant money. These sorts of politics are a reason I can't stand academia, and am leaving. Never mind the whole "publish or perish" mentality and telling a story versus doing real science. The funding rates are exceedingly low and unless you are well known you have to play ball and do sensationalist sexy science to even get funding. It doesn't lead to good work.

The sensationalism associated with 'mysteries' and 'they're hiding things you' falls into the same camp as sexy science. And both are bad for good science.

0
1

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I assure your that your reply does not fall on deaf ears. I too appreciate the thoughtful reply.

I will simply offer that my reply was not intended to convert you but rather to invite you to explore more on your own and think more for yourself. The differences in presented perspective is intended to offer that there are no absolutes. In even some cases which rest upon much deeper rabbit holes than might be otherwise obvious. Holes which are all but invisible if you only participate at the pop-sci or even academia/mainstream.

Heck, just take something simple like the craters on the moon. Mainstream will tell you exactly how they were created. They will frequently do so in re-affirmative absolutes. They won't bother to tell you that it's almost surely completely incorrect for the vast majority of creators. The evidence is overwhelming so. Yet they'll still teach it as though it's an absolute in spite of the fact that the only absolute appears to be that it's completely wrong. Same also extends to the creation of the moon itself. It's taught as an absolute, yet the author of the theory says it's so improbable that it's certainly not the correct theory. Opps.

Another example is LENR. Two groups were pivotal in discrediting. Those were MIT and CalTech. The CalTech scientists have now confirmed the original experiment and gone on record as such. They have also confirmed the reason they could not recreate was contamination. Which is why many were not able to do so (two major providers, one provided contaminated palladium wire). MIT, on the other hand, committed academic fraud. Their paper says it's proven false yet their own graph, buried in the back of the paper, confirm anomalous heat. One from within that group came forward and said the paper was written before they ever checked the results of their experiment.

Likewise DARPA and the US Navy has also confirmed. Even the NSF has lifted their ban on LENR grants. Yet the damage is done to what is now confirmed. BTW, there is now a growing body of understanding as to how LENR works - none of which violates our current understanding of physics. So when physicists claim that it's impossible because it violates physics, understand they are talking out their ass and declaring themselves proudly ignorant. If you've worked with enough PhDs, you know darn well of what I speak.

Again, regardless of what you think of the quickly thrown together examples, I hope it will invite you to explore and decide for yourself. We have taken some very bad turns and there will be some course corrections ahead - in a variety of fields.