I didn't avoid any previous posts. I read them and found them unworthy of response. I can see how this upsets some people who feel they need to be responded to.
I have seen you AVOID many posts, but I understand that you may think they are not worthy of reply. But ultimately, you asked the question "What is wrong with what Steorn are doing?". Your opening post states:
It sounds like they advertised to get independent scientists (not biased skeptical organizations or personalities) to test their product.
The main thrust of the point being that they advertised in the Economist and not in a science journal. If this point is not worthy of a response, why did you even start this thread?
Any questions about Steorn specifically, their motives etc., one would obviously have to ask them. So I recommend going to their webpage, finding their contact info, and calling, writing, or emailing them your important questions.
Then this thread......... is dead. We are discussing Steorn's actions and making judgments about their motives based upon those actions. To expect Steorn to unmuddy their own position by direct questioning is absurd in the light of their course of action so far. Would anyone expect a straight answer from Uri Geller when asked "how does the spoon bend?"
(like any normal non-pseudoskeptic-just-asking-questions-to-annoy person would do)
I'm sorry you think that people asking questions is annoying.... Perhaps a forum is not your best media, perhaps you need a static webpage where you could just write YOUR comments without anyone having the facility to question you.
I shall now answer my own question (with my obvious and clearly stated sceptical bias)
The advertisement was placed in the Economist because it was designed to attract the attention of INVESTORS and not scientists. Now getting investors involved in a project is essential, but if they have discovered free energy, they would not have to run ads, they would have venture capitalists knocking down their door from the editorial coverage they would get upon giving a demonstration of their free energy, that is of course if they had really discovered a way to produce free energy. All the promise of scientific validity appears to be a smoke screen to blow in the face of potential investors, afterall scientists have already studued this device (so Steorn tell us).
Now you regularly accuse the 'organised skeptical movement' of holding a bias..... Well of course it does but not without reason. In the face of the evidence we are quite justified in our bias. If Steorn were serious in their search for scientists, they would have placed a MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE and MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY TARGETED advert in one of the many specialist science journals and ultimately, this is the question you ask in the thread title. You have also stated many times that Steorn are looking for 'independent scientists' and yet you don't seem to acknowledge the potential 'bias' that is quite possible and most probable from Steorn cherrypicking the scientists behind closed doors. Now of course, they are entitled to follow whatever course they choose, it is their business, it only comes to light in the sceptical movement when it is dressed up as 'orthodix scientific proceedure' which it is not. Like I stated in my original post on this thread:
I would say that this "Organised Sceptical Movement" To which T'ai Chi keeps referring wouldn't be sceptical of Steorn IF they were using the "standard channels of science" because the mass PR campaign and the full page advertisement in the economist and all the other red flags that Steorn has produced would not have drawn their attention. Instead the individual members of the "organised sceptical movement" would be flexing their science muscles to replicate the data. The only thing that differentuates a SCEPTIC from a believer is the PROOF.
