Are Steorn proceeding via the standard channels of science?

[Mojo]

In another thread, it was suggested that a concensus had been arrived at: that Steorn, in their approach to having their perpetual motion machine "validated", were not proceeding via "the standard channels of science". Someone posted that "some think so, but most don't".

So, do you think Steorn are following "the standard channels of science"?

For further information, see this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62014

Or, indeed, this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64528

Apologies if this doesn't work. I've never tried to post a poll before.

 

[CFLarsen]

What exactly have they done?

They have made claims that they have a perpetual machine. They have posted an ad in The Economist. To hire scientists. To validate their findings. Not to investigate if Steorn is right or not.

In short, they want to hand-pick the scientists who will vouch for their product. And they do it in a magazine, not for scientists, but for people with money.

Don't forget, if their machine works, you will become the richest man on the planet, if you own it.

Sniff test.

If that is, in any way, to be considered "proceeding via the standard channels of science", then I would love to hear why.

 

[blutoski]

In another thread, it was suggested that a concensus had been arrived at: that Steorn, in their approach to having their perpetual motion machine "validated", were not proceeding via "the standard channels of science". Someone posted that "some think so, but most don't".

So, do you think Steorn are following "the standard channels of science"?

For further information, see this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62014

Or, indeed, this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64528

Apologies if this doesn't work. I've never tried to post a poll before.

Fair enough. The answer is: no. The normal procedure is to present a paper at a conference, and follow up with submissions to peer-reviewed journals.

Their solicitation for scientists-for-hire is not the same thing as solicitation for scientific criticism. Peer-review is completely different: your peer-reviewers are anonymous, and you have not control over their selection.

 

[wollery]

What blutoski said.