Re: Theory acceptance- was Re: Secondary Resonance LC andHarmonics

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: FutureT@xxxxxxx 

In a message dated 6/30/05 7:01:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


> Original poster: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > We have to do this if the list is to maintain its integrity!!
> >
> > There's a good deal of high quality debate on this list and
> > it's a great example of amateurs treating a difficult subject
> > (and each other) with a rational, scientific approach.
>
> There is no debate on this list.  There are a few good arguments
> or observations made and then the topic gets shut down.  The old
> timers always get their way only because they have flashy
> credentials, not necessarily because the argument is sound.


This is complete rubbish.  There's actually a lot of debate on the list
and always has been.  It is interesting that you say "no debate".
Such absolute statements are a warning sign to the true critical
thinker by the way.


> > That doesn't happen by accident.   It relies on everyone being
> > intellectually honest enough to welcome tough criticism and to
> > respond to awkward and incisive questions.   By doing so, wrong
> > stuff gets discarded quickly, while useful and effective
> > ideas quickly gain strength and support.
>
> No, new stuff gets discarded quickly and the establishment is
> exempt from being critically analyzed.  The new stuff could be
> right or wrong, but it is discarded for being new.


This too is rubbish.  Many new ideas and theories have been
adopted/accepted over the years on this list.


> > The dilemma for the list to solve is how to treat posts from
> > those who don't want to play the scientific game.  In those
> > situations, criticism of a post is met with no response
> > (other than perhaps a switch to the use of surnames).  Our
> > moderator is bending over backwards to allow all views to be
> > expressed, but this creates a caveat emptor situation for the
> > consumer.
>
> The real dilemma is that the establishment doesn't want to play
> by the same rules they set for everyone else.  Yes, Terry goes
> out of his way to allow all views to be expressed, but then he is
> forced to buckle and shut down a topic.


This is rubbish too.  Terry shuts down a topic when it either veers
off the Tesla coil topic, or veers into pseudoscience.


> If the scientific method were being practiced here, then all
> theories would always be subject to critical analysis.  There
> wouldn't be statements like, "but so and so said so, therefore it
> is established to be true."


More rubbish.  Much critical analysis takes place.


> > It isn't the moderator's job to filter posts based on
> correctness.
> > We have to do that ourselves by challenging faulty information.
>
> Like I said, this only works as long as we don't question the
> status quo, but only question the new ideas.
>
> No matter what, eventually someone will claim that this list is
> not about new science, or new theories.  This list is about
> building Tesla coils according to the methods of the old guys on
> this list.  Certainly it has nothing to do with building coils
> the way Nikola Tesla did, nor using the philosophy and science
> that Tesla used.  And that is fair game.  If that is how the
> moderator wants to run the list, then that is the way it will be
> run.


The rubbish continues.  The methods of TC construction are
constantly changing and evolving.  You must have missed this.


> But please spare us the lecture about valid science vs invalid
> science.
>
> > I don't know the solution to this dilemma.
>
> It's simple.  Just tell everybody the truth.  This list is not a
> place to discuss new theories.  It is a list for people to build
> Tesla coils that make long sparks, and nothing else.


Still more rubbish unfortunately.  There is much discussion and
interest in TC theories on this list.

Cheers,
John


> Dave