Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Dissident science.



On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Merlin wrote:

Thank you for your rebuttal against the disparaging comments made about
the Sir Arthur C. Clarke aritcle. I thought it was wonderful of you to
post that as it gave the list a new direction, away from educational
(which is okay but...)
and back on to physics, which is what this list is about. I couldn't
believe
someone would make such comments about the article, though, being the
internet I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks!

It's not the internet that's the problem. The real problem is with
"science zenophobia". Identical negative sentiments have been expressed
against Cold Fusion in major science publications in the past. Cold
Fusion is not being researched, but NOT because it doesn't work. The real
reason is demonstrated by the hostile response.

It is one thing if an effect is researched and found not to exist. But it
is quite different if the majority of scientists have a nasty emotional
reaction (in my experience they do.) Then there is no question that the
whole topic is a taboo realm of physics. If a science journal dares to
publish a positive "cold fusion" paper, it will receive thousands of
hostile letters, therefor we see no research papers in the mainstream
press. It doesn't matter if the effects are real or not. It doesn't
matter if an an Arthur C. Clarke (or even an Einstein or a Feynman) tries
to set the record straight about a subject which has become "taboo", any
attempts to do so will simply turn their supporters against them. Look at
Brian Josephson and his support of parapsychology, or Linus Pauling and
his Vitamin-C, both of them damaged their reputations by supporting some
highly "taboo" areas of science, regardless of their Nobelist status.

Check this one out, it speaks to many similar issues:

LETTER TO A DISSIDENT SCIENTIST
http://helix.ucsd.edu/~bssimon/dissent1/documents/Martin.letter.html

I suspect that hostile reactions would be much less common if physics
students took classes in science history or in the sociology of science.
We who promote science must avoid believing our own hype, and should not
shy away from looking at it's darker side. Modern people have not lived
through the persecution of Galileo, or watched the ridiculing of the
Wright Brothers unfold in the newspapers. Therefor, when a similar
situation arises in contemporary times, we are free to do the equivalent
of siding with the Catholic Church, and insisting that Galileo is a danger
to all right and proper thinking: his actions are disgraceful and should
rightly be silenced. (Actually, the person who refused to look through
Galileo's telescope was not from the church, he was a fellow scientist.)
If people responded to "CF" with "I'll believe it when I see stronger
evidence", then there would be no problem. The problem arises when people
instead respond with things like "how dare you publish such despicable
nonsense, you are wasting valuable funding and must be stopped."

All the "suppression" that the pseudoscience people always yell about?
They are not wrong. Most scientists actively hate the "fringe science"
topics, Cold Fusion included. Reasonable debate is lacking, and shameful
emotional ploys become the norm. Hostile emotional attacks upon Cold
Fusion are an example of suppression in action. It doesn't matter if the
actions are being taken against Galileo, or against Pons and Fleichman, or
even against Astrology, UFO-believers, or perpetual-motion crackpots.
Hatred and prejudice are hatred and prejudice. We should not tolerate
such behavior, even when those who indulge in it are fighting on the side
of the good guys.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-781-3320 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L