On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Keith Nagel wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> With all the learned bloviating on this topic, I'm surprised
> no one has yet addressed the critical issue with secrecy and invention.
<snip>
>
> No, the real issue is much simpler, and can be seen in every institution
> where the command and control of the organization is from top to bottom,
> WITHOUT FEEDBACK. For it is the most difficult thing in the world to do
> an experiment which invalidates a few years of work, and accept those
> results. It's almost impossible when substantial sums have been
> invested. There is just no business incentive to do this, and every
> incentive to shut up and let the boat continue on it's way. I can point
> to no better example of this than the rather spectacular failings of the
> current administration, which by their own admission prizes loyalty and
> message control above all else. When there is never heard a discouraging
> word, the skies are not cloudy right up to the inevitable T-storm which
> floods the ranch, drowns all the cattle, and strikes dead the rancher.
Yeah, RULE NUMBER ONE, and the "foolishness to fraud" effect. Other than
the companies which were frauds, failed by suppression or by pathological
secrecy, the most common event is that everyone in the company turn out to
have been fooling themselves. That's what happened to the Keelynet MRA
device. (But in that case there was no secrecy, and hobbyists piled on
and discovered the error within a couple of weeks.)
First rule: If I've made a discovery which violates the laws of
conventional physics, then I've almost definitely made a mistake
somewhere.
Seriously! Even though I'm involved with non-mainstream science, I
intentionally maintain this 'skeptic' belief for many reasons. If I
let myself start *knowing* that I've found an anomaly, I will stop
trying to double-check the results, stop trying to think up
conventional explanations, stop trying to look for mistakes, stop
looking for subtle ways I've fooled myself. I've seen how easy it is
for people to talk themselves into things. I want to avoid these
traps.
Second, if I keep strongly suspecting an error, I will resist the
temptation to let my ego get the better of me. I know the extent and
the power of my ego, and that delusions of grandeur are very easy to
fall into. Therefore, in my saner moments I set up my beliefs as
traps to trip up my future ego trips. Another: if I "know" that the
discovery is a mistake, I will force the discovery itself to
convince me otherwise. No opinions and self-delusion, just the real
world demonstrating its realness. Another: if I present it to others
as an earthshaking discovery, they will later tend to defend this
viewpoint and not help prove out the discovery. But if I present it
in terms of "find my mistake", then they might actually discover a
conventional explanation I've overlooked.
> It's a paradox of sorts that to be
> an effective inventor one must combine an insane sense
> of optimism ( 1000 failures and yet persisting ) with
> an equally insane sense of pessimism ( for only you can
> prove those early attempts WERE failures ).
That's it!
And that's why *I'm* not making my living as an inventor. To much
non-insane pessimism, far too little insane optimism. Though one does
have to be almost literally insane to mess with this field at all.
:)
(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
