Morning Break, 6/17, Huizenga Part X

What do these pictures have to do with Huizenga's book?  Nothing.  I included them because these are my new wheels.  It may be boring, but maybe somebody might find it interesting.

As far as Mr. H.'s book, I found something quite interesting this morning as I was reading.  There was a quote, which I don't have handy, which he states that he felt it was more important to investigate why instead of what.

What does that mean?  When I write "what" in terms of F&P, I mean anomalous heat production.  It is or it isn't.  To me, the why can wait until you figure out if you have a "what".  If you don't have a "what", then there is no need for a "why".  That's because if there is no heat, there is no need to explain its existence.  It should be easier to determine if there is heat or not.  As far as the why of the matter, this part may not be explainable, given the possibility that this is a new, unknown process.  The attempt to explain why of such a scenario, should it exist, would end in failure because there may not be a possible explanation for it.  It would, in effect, be breaking new ground.

This must mean that Mr. H. had already determined that it wasn't a new process, therefore he demanded a why.  But this is begging the question.  If the what is an impossibility, why ask for an explanation?  It is prejudging the event.   By definition, it means he could not be fair.  He denies bias, but in his own words here, he is admitting it.

Update:  Here's the quote:

Right from the beginning the real and most important issue was not whether the claim was real and correct, but how the reported data and claims could be explained. p. 194

I have to correct myself here.  He was referring to claims with respect to polywater as compared to the claims of "cold fusion".  Therefore, he may have an out here, by claiming he really wasn't referring how he treated the cold fusion claims.  I still think he was biased, though.