Angry at Free Energy YouTubers...

[LabSpokane]

It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.

It's not a feeling. It's real. Welcome to the energy industry! 

Unfortunately, what it isn't, is new. I think if one looks far enough back in time, there's going to be a traveling homo sapien selling magic cave heaters to neanderthals.

[cyr]

Free energy people are pretty far down on my list. The internet is equally filled with alt.med quacks, anti-vaccers, HIV denialists, hate-mongering fundamentalists, "psychics" and countless others who have have greater potential for harm to people and society.

[Hugoneus]

Why isn't this illegal?!

http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret

[LabSpokane]

Actually, I regard Free Energy quacks as very detrimental to society. The money wasted and delays in implementing sound energy policies due to some "miracle" being just around the bend have a tremendous cost to society. 

[mtdoc]

Why isn't this illegal?!

http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret

That's a good demonstration of the principle that the validity of a technical idea is inversely proportional to the size of the font and the number of quote marks and exclamation points used to describe it.

[max_torque]

I have a simple theory to explain the ever growing popularity of faux science on YouTube.


1) You need to be stupid to believe the rubbish posted on YouTube

2)If you are stupid, there is a much higher probability that you are unemployed (often unemployable ;-)

3)If you are unemployed, you have all day to watch YouTube - See point 1)


QED! 

[Hugoneus]

Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret

That's a good demonstration of the principle that the validity of a technical idea is inversely proportional to the size of the font and the number of quote marks and exclamation points used to describe it.

Indeed.

[Mechatrommer]

disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be

[atos]

2)If you are stupid, there is a much higher probability that you are unemployed (often unemployable ;-)

This true to some degree, but then again I'm not unemployed/unemployable because of any intellectual handicap. In regards to free energy concepts, I'd love some feedback in my thread. It's somewhat related to free energy in terms of converting energy to a more universal form of usable energy.

[Hugoneus]

disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be

I don't fully understand what you mean.

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Furthermore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.

[nuno]

I think it was Carl Sagan who said something in the line of "extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary demonstrations".

[hamster_nz]

However, given that the theme expressed in this thread is pretty much the same that in "The Time Machine" written in 1895, and quite a few other books. Maybe it is some sort of universal worry...

Usually there are two groups:

- The "technical skilled" who know how the world works but have become slaves to the machine

- The "ignorant and technically illiterate" elite live a live of unknowing bliss, however they must somehow pay their dues (usually involving being eaten as food).

Then the main protagonist cannot accept this state of affairs and attempts to bring enlightenment and 'freedom' to the illiterate...

[Mechatrommer]

Science is not a belief system

yes it is. first come the faith, and then hope, and then it will materialize in your daily life, and then belief comes, sometime not in that order. without faith you will not make the first step, without belief you will not make the next step, without hope you wont bother to write down the first letter. ironically most science started from "luck". why you say its not a "belief", because you think you only believe when there is a proof, methodologically accepted in scientifical community. belief or not belief is the same system, one is to do, one is not. or maybe i can say... "duality" about the same thing or system. just like electron will not exist without proton they build an atom, or matter will not exist without antimatter. they came from the same thing, pure energy. and pure energy may not be exist without what? i maybe drifting but thats the idea, somesort...

we know what faith in "religion" is, and what is faith in science? that "we will advance", that "we will find something", that "we hope for a better future"... as proven from the past, but do you have the prove that we will advance in the future? no we dont have proof because its not happening yet, but faith and hope, and "belief" is what move us on. thats what those scientists are based on, thats what every living things are based on, knowingly or unknowingly. the one who have not the faith and belief is the one who commit suicide.

[hamster_nz]

Science is not a belief system

yes it is. first come the faith, and then hope, and then it will materialize in your daily life, and then belief comes, sometime not in that order. without faith you will not make the first step, without belief you will not make the next step, without hope you wont bother to write down the first letter. ironically most science started from "luck". why you say its not a "belief", because you think you only believe when there is a proof, methodologically accepted in scientifical community. belief or not belief is the same system, one is to do, one is not. or maybe i can say... "duality" about the same thing or system. just like electron will not exist without proton they build an atom, or matter will not exist without antimatter. they came from the same thing, pure energy. and pure energy may not be exist without what? i maybe drifting but thats the idea, somesort...

we know what faith in "religion" is, and what is faith in science? that "we will advance", that "we will find something", that "we hope for a better future"... as proven from the past, but do you have the prove that we will advance in the future? no we dont have proof because its not happening yet, but faith and hope, and "belief" is what move us on. thats what those scientists are based on, thats what every living things are based on, knowingly or unknowingly. the one who have not the faith and belief is the one who commit suicide.

You have framed your argument within your own beliefs, and as a pragmatic agnostic I just can't understand what you are saying.

I have no faith in science, I have no belief in science, I just see the scientific method as a tool. Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.

Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven due to the methods used to discover and document them. Sure, as you get away from the hard science into the more statistically based stuff (like most new medicine) it gets a bit hard to see the woods through the trees (for example, does stretching before exercise prevent muscle injuries?).

And then sometimes the 'truth' is found to be just an approximation of the actual truth (e.g. Newton's gravity vs Einstein's gravity), but a deeper truth is then there to be discovered...

[Mechatrommer]

I just see the scientific method as a tool.

there your faith is. you will not pick it up if you dont have the "faith and belief" in. faith may comes when you dont know whether it is or its not its just like instinct... belief comes when you have a set of "truth conditions", that you may think also applied to the other somewhat similar conditions...

Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.

you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.

Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven

yes science is a system or tool.... but you have faith in it. you have faith in the process or methodology. "others" have faith in "imagination" alone, and thats define their reality or truth. you may seldomly see them, but they are around, less capable in mathematical or scientifical method/reasoning/process/reach etc, not us.

into the more statistically based stuff

so what is your faith in it?

[c4757p]

Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.

you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.

There are multiple definitions of "believe".

Speaking of definitions,

Verb:
conflate (third-person singular simple present conflates, present participle conflating, simple past and past participle conflated)
3. To fail to properly distinguish or keep separate (things); to treat (them) as equivalent.

[rolycat]

Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.

you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.

There are multiple definitions of "believe".

Speaking of definitions,

Verb:
conflate (third-person singular simple present conflates, present participle conflating, simple past and past participle conflated)
3. To fail to properly distinguish or keep separate (things); to treat (them) as equivalent.

Precisely. Like many religious apologists, Mechatrommer is twisting the meaning of faith and belief. In religion, faith is defined as belief without proof, and that is the antithesis of science.

It is human nature to have hopes and dreams and beliefs. Unfortunately they very often lead us to believe in fiction that matches our preconceptions rather than what is objectively correct.

Science is our best attempt to do away with fiction and establish what is objectively true, even if that flies in the face of religious dogma or personal prejudice. It is thus absolutely not a belief system, however much theists would like it to be. It may be rooted in belief in the validity of the scientific method, but that belief is backed by evidence. Science generates factual information, not beliefs.

[hamster_nz]

Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.

you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.

Experience has told me that although a hammer can be used to insert screws into wood a screwdriver does a much better job. Well, actually when I was a teenager a friend's data asked us to use screws to attach boards to a fence, we did, but we used a hammer because it was quicker - as far as I know they are still attached....

Belief and faith are different from learning. Let's not confuse me learning that a screwdriver is designed to be the best tool to use with screws with me having belief and faith in the powers of a screwdriver.

Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven

yes science is a system or tool.... but you have faith in it. you have faith in the process or methodology. "others" have faith in "imagination" alone, and thats define their reality or truth. you may seldomly see them, but they are around, less capable in mathematical or scientifical method/reasoning/process/reach etc, not us.

The first sentence of Wikipedia's article on faith is "Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof". Where there is solid proof there is no need for faith.

into the more statistically based stuff

so what is your faith in it?

Far higher than my faith (if I had any!) in anecdotes, testimonials or celebrity endorsements.

[paulie]

They are not the same or similar. In a way direct opposites. Most of recent commenters here pontificating and waning philosophical are engaging there own definitions for "belief"and "faith". Number one accepted definition of the latter:

Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.

I.E. Belief without reason. Those with scientific bent are in no way involved in faith. Fortunately logic and critical thought prevail.

[Hugoneus]

Mechatrommer I have to respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you. We can't be playing with words here.

I don't have faith in science, I don't believe in science. I accept that it is the best system our species has come up with to advance our understanding of the real world. I accept evidence which describe facts. I accept nothing without proper evidence.

I would love to believe or have faith to make myself feel better, or to twist reality to suite my needs, but that is not science. In its ideal form, a scientist must put aside all his/her beliefs, faiths, etc. and rely on evidence, reason and criticism. As a scientist myself, I strive for this ideal. I am not always 100% successful, but that is a failing on my part and not a shortcoming of science.

[hamster_nz]

Oh, and reason doesn't have to be scientific.

I've been sick three times in the last 5 years, and only eaten shellfish twice. Both times I was sick the following day.

I could do the statistics but I'm very confident that the shellfish was the reason. It isn't absolute proof, or a scientific proof, but it is well-reasoned and I don't want to do any more experiments to investigate.

[pickle9000]

Faith based electronics.

[Hugoneus]

I would love to believe or have faith to make myself feel better, or to twist reality to suite my needs, but that is not science. In its ideal form, a scientist must put aside all his/her beliefs, faiths, etc. and rely on evidence, reason and criticism. As a scientist myself, I strive for this ideal. I am not always 100% successful, but that is a failing on my part and not a shortcoming of science.

Not to single you out, but, if you are prepared to concede you don't always attain the 100% ideal, then it follows that there is a "gray" area between the black and white ends of the faith - pure science spectrum.

No, that is not what I meant at all.

I mean that while I always (and I mean always) rely on evidence and reason, I sometimes wish that I could just have "faith" to draw comfort in unpleasant situations. There is no grey zone. But I would much rather strive for the ideal scientific approach than for false comfort.

[hamster_nz]

Faith based electronics.

Electronics has its own lore that is largely faith-based, handed down from engineer to engineer.... caps, coils, pretty much all of RF, high speed digital, high power, ESD - all of which seem to have a body of half-truths and rules-of-thumb that rely more on faith than engineering.

Heck, even some computer haxors believe that heat running your HDD or CPU warm shortens their life, "overclocker grade" memory is somehow magical, and gigabit ethernet to the router improves you gaming.

[pickle9000]

Faith based electronics.

Electronics has its own lore that is largely faith-based, handed down from engineer to engineer.... caps, coils, pretty much all of RF, high speed digital, high power, ESD - all of which seem to have a body of half-truths and rules-of-thumb that rely more on faith than engineering.

Heck, even some computer haxors believe that heat running your HDD or CPU warm shortens their life, "overclocker grade" memory is somehow magical, and gigabit ethernet to the router improves you gaming.

I call that odds based, worked in the past should work this time. Being proven wrong simply adds to our understanding. With faith, even if proven wrong people often (very often) revert back ignoring the facts at hand.