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
Subject: Re: Reference
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,
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Apr 16, 2012 9:50 AM
To: Forrest Bishop , David Tombe , Cameron Mercer , firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
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.htm
" all those who are familiar with this will have been so browbeaten with fancy
maths making then think they are not bright enough to believe their own
thoughts, and so keep quiet."-IC
This the reason it may take 1000 years to extinguish the "Church of Electric Current" (and Darwinism, Plate Tectonics, relativity, etc.). The Establishment is not founded on logic and reason. It is a sado-masochistic hierarchy of domination and submission that relies on fear and on a con. Climbing up the hierarchical ladder becomes the imperative for the student; understanding the natural world outside the hierarchy has little to do with that. Just pointing out the obvious.