This is more of an abstract thread to discuss the credibility of various models and inventions that pass by the forums from time-to-time.
How should we judge the credibility of a system or claim when it is presented online? We have to acknowledge that many different things affect this:
* Process is explained simply.
* Process is explained several different ways.
* Process is engineerable.
* Process doesn't require hard-to-find tools or materials.
* The parameters and limits to the process are well defined.
* Process can be explained in great detail.
* Process has a conceptual or mathematical proof attached to it.
* Process is consistent with other credible devices online.
And beneath all of that:
* Device is constructed to demonstrate the process.
(this is a relatively low-credibility action because anything can be faked online)
Ideally, a person trying to convey a concept to other tinkerers would focus on increasing their credibility in
all of these fields and not just show a video of a motor spinning.
There are a few situations where the above points will break down:
- A person can build a working device but doesn't quite understand *how* it works.
- A person has a good theoretical OU model that is consistent, but presents no engineerable solutions.
- A language/vocabulary/teaching barrier prevents person's words from being correctly understood by others.
IMO these are just some things we should be aware of when evaluating systems online.
Feel free to add/comment in regards to this.