Analysis of
Professor Brian Josephson.
The 16 April 2012 email below from Forrest
Bishop exposes the shallowness of my previous analysis of Professor Josephson.
I had said a month ago that should Josephson U-turn
and support Catt’s electromagnetism this would not help, because then
Josephson, even though a Nobel Prizewinner (i.e.
Establishment-kosher), would be doubly blighted for tangling with the
paranormal and now with revolutionary electromagnetism. I failed to appreciate
that he was already doubly blighted, for the paranormal and also for setting up
a lecture in Cambridge on Cold Fusion. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242 If he tangled with revolutionary
electromagnetism, he would be triply blighted.
I remember that many years ago I
unsuccessfully tried to avoid going to a lecture on the paranormal since I felt
that this action would blight my electromagnetic theory. Separately, I found
that a professor of electromagnetism knew he must not get involved with me
because, like Josephson, he had already “misbehaved” by getting mixed up with
the paranormal.
As Forrest says, Josephson has a unique
position. In the video above he shows that he understands the two separate
communities, which he calls “academics” and “practical”. Curiously, the video
contains no mathematics, but in the case of electromagnetism he always asserts
that all the key information is in the mathematics.
In the case of electromagnetism, he delivers
all the kinds of ripostes listed by Polanyi - Catt does
not understand the maths, Catt does not understand the subject etc. Also, the
rudeness should be expected. See the end of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x232.pdf
. Polanyi continues; “In a clash of intellectual passion each side must
inevitably attack the opponent’s person.”
In his famous book, T S Kuhn thrice says (pp 109, 1`48) they always
“talk through each other”. This is shown by the fact that Josephson thinks the
Pepper answer to “The Catt Question” is relevant to “The Catt Question”, while
Catt says that only one sentence in Pepper’s “answer” has any relevance, and it
is the sentence that Josephson disagrees with; “As the wave travels at light
velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at
light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible.” This idea, of a dialogue
of the deaf, is central to the situation. Note that MacRoberts
twice assert an asymmetry in this dialogue, that one party only understands its
own position, whereas the other party understands both positions. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x145.pdf
.
I
find it extraordinary that none of my party seems willing to add their analysis
of the Pepper “answer” to “The Catt Question”. My analysis is that only one
sentence is relevant. Why do none of my co-authors and
other supporters, including Forrest, confirm or deny this? In this, they refuse
to give support to Kuhn assertion that the two parties talk through each other
– Josephson thinking that the Pepper answer is relevant, while Catt says it is
not. Can they all not see that it is important to establish (or deny) the validity
of the Kuhn assertion? The views of Catt and Josephson on the Pepper answer are
totally opposed. Note that recently Josephson says that Pepper believed that
Catt did not understand the subject of “The Catt Question”, which surely
reinforces the Kuhn insight. When addressing “The Catt Question”, Pepper and
Catt are addressing a totally different Question. Note that Pepper writes; “If I may restate the
basis of your question,”
“Brian Josephson has a
unique position in that he is at once both within and without”. I don’t think
the two Josephsons are compatible. Does he say the
mathematics is central to cold fusion and to the paranormal? Only today the
idea occurred to me of a future when Josephson, a Nobel prizewinner,
could be looked back on as a tragic figure. If cold fusion implodes, and the
paranormal fails to gain entry into mainstream science but Theory C does, he
will come to be looked on as very strange indeed. He backed the bizarre, but
when it came to an obvious development of orthodox science, he could not see
the obvious, and also played the usual Establishment games of rubbishing those
trying to advance the art.
Ivor Catt 17 April 2012
From: Forrest
Bishop
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:01 PM
To: Ivor Catt
; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Reference
Dear Ivor,
Perhaps it isn't as obvious the closer one is to it. Brian Josephson has a
unique position in that he is at once both within and without. He staunchly
defends one Established area while being dissident in two others- cold fusion
and parapsychology (two areas I find perfectly legitimate for scientific
scrutiny, by the way.) So he sees the Established behavior
from both sides as well, how the ceremony and fulsome praise can instantly turn
to defamation and shunning for example.
I'll have more on the topic of censorship mechanics later on,
Forrest
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Apr 16, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Forrest Bishop , David Tombe
, Cameron Mercer , bdj10@cam.ac.uk, john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Reference
“Just pointing out the obvious.” – FB
No. This is new. These nuances are so very important.
At some time in the future, it will be obvious to everyone that a full understanding of what went wrong in the 20th century and beyond will be needed. Your brief item below is valuable. It echoes Professor Hiram Caton to some degree.http
://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8a6.htmSent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:08 PM
To: Ivor Catt ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;
bdj10@cam.ac.uk
; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk