Re: A hidden side of science

[brian mcinnes <bmcinnes@PNC.COM.AU>]

on 25/7/03 1:21 PM, Hugh Haskell at hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM wrote:

> At 19:13 -0700 7/24/03, Ludwik Kowalski quoted:
>
> > In the face of such obstacles, several strategies are
> > available, which include mimicking science, aiming
> > at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a
> > different audience, exposing suppression of dissent,
> > and building a social movement.

Hugh Haskell wrote 
> I would say that anyone who is advising someone proposing an
> unpopular theory to scientists to "mimic science" is not coming at
> the problem from a scientific perspective.

Hugh, it is a pity that before writing your scathing reply you didn't take
some time out to peruse Martin's paper (it probably would have taken less
time than formulating your reply).

Let's look at what Martin is getting at when he advises "mimicking orthodox
science":  
" Since mainstream scientists expect contributions to be in a certain
standard format, then writing articles in this format may increase chances
of success. Since submissions from institutional addresses are usually
treated more seriously than those from home addresses, it may be useful to
set up an institute ‹even if it contains only one person! Alternatively, it
might be possible to obtain an honorary position at an established
institution, such as a university. There are a few open-minded departments
that may be willing to provide a haven for dissenters."

Whether or not that is "a scientific perspective", it's pretty good advice.

You continued
> And to argue that science has an "entrenched power structure," is
> only looking at half the situation, and then from a very jaundiced
> perspective. Science is conservative, as well it should be.

You write "entrenched power structure";  Martin wrote "science is a system
of power" which is not quite the same thing.

Let's look at a little of what Martin wrote here.
"Some types of interests are corporate, government, bureaucratic,
professional, career, and psychological. In each case they can exert strong
pressures on the direction of research and shape the response to
challengers. Note that interests influence science without the necessity of
conscious bias, since interests shape people¹s world views."

Certainly true, almost a motherhood statement.  There's much more of
interest as he develops this theme, with plenty of references given, but I
won't overload this e-mail.

For most of rest of your reply you go on about cold fusion: the points you
make are certainly of interest but they are not relevant to your dismissal
of Martin's paper, since he nowhere mentions cold fusion in that paper.  So
I'll snip a lot of your reply and preserve your final paragraph, which
really got up my nose.

<snip>

> That's my $0.02 worth. I have better things to do with my time than
> to read the ranting of an outsider, who, if your quoting of him is
> characteristic, has little if any understanding or appreciation of
> how science works. Its shades of Joe Newman all over again.

Now, Hugh, Martin is a physicist; he is not an outsider.  His paper is not a
rant; it presents a well-argued and well-sourced argument.  One may or may
not agree with what he writes but he deserves to be read and not dismissed
so cavalierly and with such scorn.

I admit to a personal interest in this matter.  Brain Martin did some
teaching for me almost 30 years ago when he was a post-graduate student.
That teaching was unconventional and successful.  Since than he had spent
many years understanding and appreciating how science works.  Would that
more of us had done the same.

Brian McInnes



Scanned by PeNiCillin http://safe-t-net.pnc.com.au/