Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

If you want to avoid personal attacks then you should try and make your observations less personal.  I take it very personally when people accuse me of fraud.  I also take extreme exception to claims that FE is being discussed when it is absolutely NOT the subject under discussion.  And to then pass an opinion on that discussion is entirely void of sense if it also bears no relation to the subject under discussion - which is the case here.

Your point - as you put it - was actually NEVER made.  All you did was make a generic dismissal of  our dialogue which you described so eloquently in the use of the words BLAH BLAH.  I have a four year old granddaughter who's got a better vocabulary.  Your assumption was that we were talking FE or OU.  THAT was an assuption.  In fact the subject is and was entirely irrelevant to this discussion. 

I suffer from many things exnihiloest but 'too much ego' as you put it,  is certainly not one of them.  Else I would certainly NOT persist in posting on any forum at all.  And when my attacks become ad hominem - as you put it - then you are really well justified in your comments.  My attack in this instance is against the substance of your posts.  And I have absolutely NEVER claimed FE - anywhere - EVER.

We have detailed our experimental evidence in two papers both of which are widely referenced.  The last paper has the experimental evidence of COP>7 and it's unarguable.  But I grant you that the text of the paper would be as obscure to you as the theme of this thread.  You would not be able to understand it if it was translated into words of one syllable.  But.  My thesis - as it relates to that paper is NOT the subject under discussion.  And again.  You would not be able to realise this without first reading the context in this thread and then, which is probably more demanding, understand what's written here.  And that's not because any of us are inarticulate.  And frankly Exnihiloest - there is absolutely no gratification in dealing with 'like minds'.  Else there would be no discussion.  But I do, indeed, prefer thinking about a subject then passing an opinion on it.  That's your particular brand of genius.

I have also not presumed to DEMAND you stay away.  I simply strongly recommend it.  When and if I demand it then please point me to that post.  I'll gladly edit it out.

Rosemary

[spinn_MP]

Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?

Spinn?  Is that really a question?  I think I'll pass.

R

[pauldude000]

Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.

Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis

As ever Paul.  Very well said. Definitely deserves repetition in a copied post.  LOL