A Mindset
So many discussions on Steorn deteriorate into a bun fight between believers and sceptics. Passions run high and the same old invectives fly at each other like virtual ammo in a networked game. For me, the argument is tired and will be answered soon enough by Steorn. That said, in following my thoughts, you deserve to know why I’m off the fence and exactly what it is that I believe. I’ll try to explain this over the next couple of entries and, in this post, I’ll set the scene on the mindset I’ve approached the subject with. In the next entry, I’ll summarise some of the facts that caused me to jump the fence and then we can get on to the forward looking stuff about what it all means.
When I was a kid, I was taken in by a well-known author who claimed to have evidence that aliens had visited us in the past and that they had given our ancestors’ skills such as the ability to perform brain surgery. I was obsessed. He’d written a book and I’d read it, so it had to be true. When I saw him admit (on TV) to fabricating evidence, I was devastated. I felt stupid and vowed never to be duped again. So started a life-long journey as a born-again sceptic. I was the guy to debunk any crazy claim. Ghosts, fabled monsters, religious cults – all were fair game. I wanted to believe in crazy things just like everyone else, but the truth is that the real world is crazy and exciting enough. There was simply no need to believe in fairy tales – the universe has it all.
And yet, here I am – a free energy believer.
The scientific method is one of man’s greatest achievements. It steers the practitioner from the tendency to see what he wants to see and not what is there. It kills subjectivity and replaces it with meticulous measurement and solid fact. Good scientists know that our view of the world is not the absolute truth. It is a mere snapshot of the best picture we’ve got so far. They look forward to the day when that view is shattered and another veil falls from our eyes. In recalling some of these shifts in viewpoint, it is easy to convince ourselves that scientists are myopic and that somehow, because they have made mistakes in the past, that they must be wrong this time. We have moved from a flat Earth to GPS, from Heavenly Light twinkling through the curtain of night to Hubble’s images of a billion galaxies, and from witchdoctor and voodoo to invisible body-snatchers determined to kill us all. Each advance is often more fantastic than the fable it destroys, but this is no excuse for lazy thinking. It would be folly to replace the scientific method that gave us these truths with wishful dreams. The notion that science is flawed because it doesn’t and can’t know everything is absurd. We need to guard against sensationalism, stamp on the need to inflate our own egos by attacking those more knowledgeable than ourselves - twisting their successes to failures. There are lessons, sure. But beware. The fact that scientists have being spectacularly wrong in the past is not proof of failure but proof of success. It lends nothing to the truth or otherwise of our own unsubstantiated dreams. An open mind can also be an empty one.
So, what about this free energy thing? It seems curious to me that we exist in a vat teeming with energy, but we’re barred from using all but the outer froth to heat our homes and power our lives. The Earth spins, it flies around the sun, screams through the galaxy and careers around the universe faster than The Magic Roundabout on speed. Stars explode, galaxies collide, electrons perpetually twirl and energy is created and destroyed in the vacuum that exists in the interstitial lattice framing everything we see. Every year, scientists discover impossible things are real and it is no longer good enough to say that the truth as we know it is the only absolute worth talking about. Someday soon, we will discover a way to harness enough of this energy to change everything. Why not now?
Having laid out my stall and given you an idea of where I’m coming from, my next entry will try to explain why I have jumped the fence and why I believe that Steorn has what it takes to impact our lives on a scale that some equate to Fire 2.0.
Labels: steorn energy belief sceptic
posted by Paul Story at
18:34
6 Comments:
It sounds like Von Daniken got you as a kid. You might ask yourself why you were willing to believe him and how he managed to persuade you. You might then ask yourself how as a mature adult your expressed faith in Steorn's completely unsubstantiated claims is any more reasoned than that painful childhood experience.
I have never understood what anyone thinks they lose if they resist wild unsubstantiated claims. There is no opportunity I see to miss. Steorn doesn't tell you that you will miss anything by ignoring them until they prove themselves. There is no investment to miss out on. There is no limited buyers list. Steorn even say they will reveal the magic secrets under a GPL.
So what motivates your personal choice to select faith over collective experience? Why do you feel compelled to declare and promote your faith when even Steorn's CEO questions its basis?
BTW you said that you are going to the demo, and that you know of others flying in. Steorn have stated that they are keeping the specific date and location a secret until it starts. What have you and the others you speak of done to overcome that issue? Are you booked into some hotel in London for all of July?
Hi fpg,
You're spot on with the Von D thing. I have indeed asked myself that question. Do I have the gullibility gene? Was my tendency to believe then at the root of my being suckered by such nonsense? If so, how does that fit with what I am seeing now?
The difference is that scepticism is now my gut reaction; one of habit and default. I also have many years of experience - of many things - and a scientific view of the world. This is why I fully understand where so many of you are coming from.
I read physics because I see the power of its results and share the quest to use logic, observation and diligent measurement to discover the realities that surround us.
That said, I am not afraid to make my own calls, no matter how it goes against established thinking. If you follow my logic, you will see that reducing the question of whether they have a machine that does what they say it does (in practical terms, not scientific) to a question of do I believe them or not, is in fact quite reasonable.
If it was one person who had convinced me (that he was truthful) then alarm bells would hold me back, but the wealth of circumstantial evidence and my dispassionate analysis of the key players involved - in their performance and words - leads me to believe what they say. This is not blind belief in the science and people who cannot see the difference are being a touch blind themselves.
I do agree with you that a wait-and-see policy is the wisest course for most people. However, I am a writer, opinionated and perhaps a little arrogant to want to share that opinion with those who would hear it.
I may be wrong - but my call is that they are on the level.
Paul, thanks for the reply.
If you choose to believe Steorn, that is your free choice and I don't have any interest in dissuading you per-se. I am trying to reconcile your claims to skepticism, while you draw a conclusion that is not based on any direct evidence at all. That conclusion in fact must set aside tremendous experience that runs directly counter to the claim. IE how can your approach be reasoned when it requires a leap of faith based on at best peripheral assessments none of which address the phenomenal claim?
But what I really want to know is what motivates the leap in the first place. If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that you lose nothing by ignoring Steorn's fantastic claims so long as they continue to offer no supporting evidence. So why do you feel compelled to make a decision on faith?
Also, if you could say I would really like to know how you and the others you say are flying in to see the London demo plan to insure that you attend without knowing either the date(s) or specific location in advance.
The words, 'faith' and 'belief' are thrown about like drops of holy water to a vampire. They conjure up an image of someone who is not using their mind in a critical fashion. I have not abandoned reason to someone else's faith, but have faith in my own ability to reason. I am well aware that one is more likely to be wrong when betting against the odds, particularly when some of the key parameters in play are prey to subjectivity. However, I am not being a scientist here, I do not have to follow the shots called by others. I am simply being human and making a judgement call in the full knowledge that I could be wrong. I hope and expect and admire the scientist who chooses to tackle Steorn's claims in an absolute and scientific manner. That's not my job and there is more to life than science.
If we were to try to walk by measuring all the forces in play and only make the move when the balance was right, we would get nowhere. A scientist could ruin his or her life with a bad judgement call, I risk only embarrassment and some time. I can live with that but don't expect to have to.
I'm sure you are aware that I am under an NDA and know that you would not wish for me to break it. There are certain areas I won't go near, not because the answer would reveal anything astounding, but simply because I do not want to make a slip and say something I shouldn't. In the future I will likely ignore questions that take me in directions I don't want to go. Please forgive me, I am not intending to be rude, simply pragmatic.
I appreciate your reasoned debate.
Paul, wrt to the words "belief" and "faith" we can stick exactly to the denotative definitions in any dictionary of choice. Any concept that is accepted as true is a belief. Beliefs can be well founded, based on complete fantasy or anywhere in between. Any belief that is based on something other than verifiable underlying facts is based on faith.
I don't believe that there is any dispute that Steorn offers no verifiable evidence in support of their claim. That by definition relegates acceptance as a matter of faith. If you want to do that, fine. If you want to rationalize that faith on the basis that you think the people at Steorn are good people that's fine too. But please, let's be honest here: rationalized or not, faith is faith. The character and/or motives of the: operator, inventor, financier, or spectator of any machine has no bearing on what any machine can and cannot do. Consequently, evaluation of the character of any of those players is not a rational basis for evaluation of any machine's capability.
I really would like to get to the core question which is why the faith? Why now? You acknowledge what you think you can lose if your faith is misplaced. What do you have to gain or not lose by placing that faith now?
I am not sure where you are trying to go when speaking of the NDA. If you are trying to say that you know the time and/or specific location of the demo but that is under NDA issue, it seems simple enough to state as much. If you are trying to say something else, forgive me but you will need to be more specific.
Hi fpg,
I have explained my point of view and I know that you are intelligent enough to understand it if you wish to do so. I'm sure that others reading this will be. I don't intend to spend all my time on this blog going round in circles (much as I am enjoying talking with you, it is simply too time-consuming and unproductive).
You may choose to obfuscate the difference between evidence of scientific conclusiveness and the absence of anything which a rational person can deal with, but that's fine too.
I must be upfront and say that in the future I will not publish all comments when I see the pattern of the discussion getting stuck. I get bored with it. There are many places where that can take place but I would rather move on and accept that your argument is intelligent but one that I disagree with.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home