Philip, What and tinkers have a monopoly on intuition? This is a romantic notion that somehow getting educated cramps one style. Well it does for most but some get through it. This is the noble savage argument, "if Louis Armstrong can't read music then by association I'm a genius too 'cos I never had a day at school".
No, you can't beat it: absolute honesty, putting stuff in the public domain making absolutely clear how it's done and *understanding* the science going on and saying what one doesn't understand and what is the further work. I reckon on the law of diminishing returns that between tinkering and over educated-unproductiveness that the best placed are the engineering-scientists - between theory and try it and see. That doesn't mean that it has to be found all in one person - teamwork helps immensely. Why didn't Steorn hire a good researcher? They can just interview until they find the ones who are open and then subject them to regular progress reviews and board meetings when the researcher is employed. They would bridge the gap between the tinkering, engineering domain and physics. This would help publication. It's a bit like having an advocate in a court case even though one might feel they can argue it themself. Take EarthTech: Scott Little, Michael Ibsen and Hal Puthoff (mind you Scott has a PhD in Mech. Eng and is no slouch). Or Crick and Watson Rolls and Royce Edison and Tesla Orvill and Wilbur and so on. The Steorn hype will be counterproductive to them first and others. Patience, patience, softly, softly catchee monkey. R. -----Original Message----- From: Philip Winestone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 September 2006 11:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: All this steorn stuff is a good argument for peer review Perhaps I can add one factor: The neglect of the human intuitive faculty. P. At 11:36 AM 9/4/2006 +0100, you wrote: >All, >Isn't all this steorn bandwidth a good example of the need for peer review >and going to school? > >I amazed by the masses' gullibility. > >It's too easy to claim conspiracies, big oil etc. The biggest factors are: > >1) Limit of human intellect - inventors too. > >2) Academic conservatism and envy, just common or garden human envy and >unproductiveness. > >3) Gullibility and going with the flow. > >4) Lack of patience to do good work and have it accepted by even the most >conservative. > >5) Limited resources. > > >R.P. Feynman had it right in Cargo-Cult Science: > > The ships never land even though they've apparently painted the landing >strip and turned on the lights! > >Same old, same old, told you so. >R.
