posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
I've been reading this whole conversation about Searl and its invention for a couple of minutes now and i must say that every single one of your
arguments seem very plausible.
However, i feel impeled to state that an unnecessary rough climate is emerging in this dialogue.
There are two poles: those who support the scientist and those who do not (and i refer to John Searl as "scientist" because he is being judged
according to the aactual social perception of "being scientist").
According to the notion's historical evolution of "being scientist", if there is something - a sort of tool- that a "scientist" must always have
in his pocket is the capacity of extrapolating the paradigm where his mind is located and imagine different possibilities.
Therefore, if "the tool" exists within his thoughts, it will be accessible to him not only to accept the concepts that reign upon the technological,
scientifical and social environment that condition his knowledge, but also to believe that his knowledge may not be enough (neither 100% right) to
describe if what he learned is true or not.
I'm only trying to say that those who, by means of coercivity and of expressions/files wrote by famous scientists ("files" which nature is also
very doubtful), are (if i'm allowed to say so) "arguing as if contradicting a hundred year old theory or law would mean the end of the world"
shouldn't, not only be so sceptical, but also narrowminded (if i may say so) and support the pros and cons of one's argument (the truth and the lie
associated to an ideal).
And, to those who support Searl, even if his concept seems attractive and credible enough to be accepted or seems to be "a miraculous solution to the
world's problem" it doesn't mean that it has to be published/spreaded imediatly because, considering the possibility that his invention works, that
would bring large scale implications in world's economics and social behaviour, leading to wether the beggining of a New Global Perspective or to a
chaotic clash of power abuse, resulting on a disastrous social dissolution.
I'm just expressing myself as a completely neutral person towards the actual Topic of discussion.
To sum it up, even if John Searl failed, it's failure is not enough to conclude that his idea, concept or theory is completely wrong ,or completely
right , or ,according to some people's words, a fraud.
Any relevant objections are welcome.