ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 265 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

ECW E-Cat World

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

Panacea-BOCAF

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

What do you think?
Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 @ 20:04:25 UTC by vlad

General From yahoo free_energy group:
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:50:36 -0700
From: Phil Karn
Subject: Re: trash talker throws tantrum

> Sterling: For the most part, those who are involved in the free energy world are the "outcasts" from the mainstream, codified world of status
> quo science.

And with very good reason: they reject the scientific method, with its built-in awareness of human fallibility and the strong emphasis on reproducibility and peer review that's proven so effective in correcting for it.


The free-energy cranks are actually much worse than unscientific. Not
only do they ignore the scientific method, but they frequently let their
paranoia, egos and delusions of grandeur get in the way of simple common
sense. I'm beginning to think that most, if not all, are mentally ill to
varying degrees.

> For the most part, those who have serious credentials
> won't touch this stuff lest they loose credibility with their peers,
> who frown on it.

More mainstream scientists *should* touch this stuff, if only to debunk
it to minimize the damage it does to general scientific literacy. It is
all too common for mainstream scientists to conclude that creationists,
flat-earthers, UFOlogists, free-energy enthusiasts and other scientific
crackpots aren't worth legitimizing with responses. It certainly takes
much more effort to exhaustively debunk a crackpot claim than to
originally make it. And there's a lot less money to be made by debunking.

But this is a big mistake. The silence of mainstream science is
misconstrued by a scientifically illiterate public as an implicit
admission that mainstream science *can't* rebut these claims.

Our society is more dependent on science and technology than ever
before. Many public policy decisions require at least a basic knowledge
of how science works. Scientific illiteracy therefore comes with some
substantial costs for society. It must be reversed, and this should
start with the methodical debunking of pseudoscience.

Phil

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about General
· News by vlad


Most read story about General:
Z machine melts diamond to puddle


Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"What do you think?" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: What do you think? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, August 11, 2003 @ 12:12:43 UTC
Matty here...I've been accused of being delusional so many times its a compliment. The gloves are now off debunkers!

Did you ever consider that the reason we don't adhere to scientific method is because science has become a matter of prestige and maintaining whatever theory provides the next round of funding?

Debunkers are actually afraid of the natural trend towards interdisciplinarianism because academic circles are entirely composed of specialists.

The GUT must explain everything, including metaphysical phenomena and ya know what? The most obvious experimental proof for a GUT is Overunity, Inertial Mass Reduction (Or violation of CPT), and AI. You will never find the higgs field with a cyclotron, you'll never get to hyperspace in a rocket, and you'll never know the role of chaos in consciousness without REALLY GOING OUT THERE!

Mad-scientist? I'm in good company friend.

I acknowledge the ideal scientific method is a balance of the mad-scientist and skeptic. You don't see us mad-scientists talking sh*t about debunkers all the time because we are too busy studying, pondering, experimenting.

Fact is, debunkers, career debunkers anyway, are BOTTOM FEEDERS! If not for this delusion of mine you'd be unemployed mister!

I'll admit to being insane when the debunker admits he is uncapable of positing an original theory.



Re: What do you think? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, August 11, 2003 @ 21:19:00 UTC
The complaint is meaningless because it is generalised.

Certainly it is "true" in many instances, but to lump all those categories together is itself unscientific. I take it "Phil" has never seen a UFO. Poor him. Perhaps he should go and talk with astronaut Gordon Cooper, or Edgar Mitchell.

Somewhere along the line there have to be new ideas, and the fact is - throughout history there are a multitude of people claiming stuff isn't possible.

Why spend millions on high energy particle research to prove or disprove the Higgs boson?? There are plenty of competing theories and as discussing them is essentially free, that's what we should do.

Science progresses by funerals. History demonstrates that in abundance.

Doug


  • Polymath Phil by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 @ 03:35:50 UTC
    • Re: UFO's by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2003 @ 01:55:32 UTC

 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.