... My point is that discoveries are made by hands on people who might not have the best schooling or communication methods which would satisfy the investors and other geologists. ...
I'm not opposed to this way of thinking at all, it's part of the way to get discoveries. To keep your comparison, let's assume that FE is the gold you're looking for. If you find gold nuggets, boast that you've picked up 1 Kg of it, and it turns out not to be gold but copper oxide, because you didn't have the skills to distinguish the two but wanted to believe it and appear as a great discoverer on the forums, you'd be one of the so-called "FE inventors" whose discoveries nobody has yet been able to profit from. Most great inventions have come from highly educated people, but not all. Of course, even if you're just a "tinkerer in his garage", you still have a chance of finding something. Whatever our level, we're all ignorant to one degree or another, even the "highly educated". But highly educated or not very educated, if we do not have sufficient skills to conclude what we assert, or if we believe we have them when we do not have them, or if we believe ourselves to have a more open mind than more educated people because we would not be "formatted" by scientific knowledge, or if we are intellectually dishonest or without requirements in logic, we generate these piles of nonsense that we see everywhere, and my assertion that these are nonsense is proven by the fact that no one benefits from this FE claimed to be a reality. The question is not a question of person, but as already said, a question of method. We cannot accept as reality the simple assertion of so-and-so that he has invented something revolutionary. His assertion must be refutable in the sense of Karl Popper (otherwise it is like a religious assertion, always true but only for the believer), and only a broad consensus on the reality of the functioning can make us speak of a real invention.
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|