Censorship in Science and Science Forums

[MacM]

The following article is lengthy and touches many of the areas of competing views in science. It is a fair and balanced view giving the referances and qualifications of those both pro and con on major scientific issues.

In contrast to arguements put forth here, by those supportive of current scientific views in the Physics & Math Forum, that no such bias exists in the community, their conduct is a reflection of actual cases of real censorship in the scientific community.

Excellent read about events surrounding experiments that have challenged Cold Fusion, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, light invariance, MLET, etc.

A must read for anyone wanting to have a more informed view of the situation.

******************* Link with Extract Conclusion *************

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htm

Conclusions
There is widespread belief among physicists and non-physicists alike that physics has essentially "figured out" the universe. According to this "end of science" argument[75], all that remains to the great enterprise of science is to connect a few dots and do some fine-tuning. But the evidence discussed in this article suggests that this satisfactory state of affairs is a mere illusion created by the scientific establishment's habit of suppressing or ignoring disconfirming evidence, and that some of the most basic tenets of physics are in need of major revision.

************************************************** *****

[Roman]

I'm a non-physicist, and I believe that most of you particle phsyicist are crackpot theorists with little empirical evidence to confrim the existance of 11 dimensions or the quark.

But then, you guys do make cool stuff like atomic bombs and Ice-9 (that was a reference to Cat's Cradle, an dif you didn't get it, I apologize).

Billion dollar particle acceleration devices for what? Creating micro black holes and destroying the solar system?

You guys are so esoteric, you're as bad as the Church.

[MacM]

I'm a non-physicist, and I believe that most of you particle phsyicist are crackpot theorists with little empirical evidence to confrim the existance of 11 dimensions or the quark.

But then, you guys do make cool stuff like atomic bombs and Ice-9 (that was a reference to Cat's Cradle, an dif you didn't get it, I apologize).

Billion dollar particle acceleration devices for what? Creating micro black holes and destroying the solar system?

You guys are so esoteric, you're as bad as the Church.

You didn't vote? Also just so you know I am not one of the insiders. I am not as against scientists as I am for true science. But you are right that current science has become a religion.

[Roman]

Have you ever read Kuhn's Revolutions?

It's where we get the phrase paradigm shift from.

Oh, and I'm not really sure what you mean by Modern Science.
Is that just physics, or does it include Biology, Geology, Psych, and so forth.

[MacM]

No I haven't read Huhn. Do you have a link?

The article is mostly physics but does touch on Evolution as well.

[ElectricFetus]

Oh physics has mostly everything understood, its Cosmology that off in a wacky zone of hypothesizes and minimal evidence.

[Roman]

A snopes-ish study guide:

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn.html

and Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226458083/104-6348900-9649532?v=glance

It's a little hard to read, Kuhn's sentences are long and thick, but it's well structured and worth the $13.

Fetus here shares in the fallacy that science has everything figured out, but we really don't. In the next 100 years, almost all our beliefs will be as antiquated as ethers and mediums. Who's to say that Mendeleev had it right? It used to be that everything was composed of 4 elements.

What ever happened to phlogiston?

Science is very dogmatic. As much as scientists claim to be antithetical to religion and to change, science is very reluctant to change. It was cynically said that science takes a generation to change, because all the old believers have to die off first.

X-rays were very obvious once they were discovered, but the scientific community rejected the idea for years. Roentgen's peers were highly skeptical of Roentgen's fidnings; some even went so far as to insinuate he was a fraud.

[James R]

MacM:

Conclusions
There is widespread belief among physicists and non-physicists alike that physics has essentially "figured out" the universe. According to this "end of science" argument[75], all that remains to the great enterprise of science is to connect a few dots and do some fine-tuning. But the evidence discussed in this article suggests that this satisfactory state of affairs is a mere illusion created by the scientific establishment's habit of suppressing or ignoring disconfirming evidence, and that some of the most basic tenets of physics are in need of major revision.

I haven't bothered to read the whole article. The conclusion is enough to get this author's particular bias.

It is quite possible to get a sense that physicists and other scientists think they have it all worked out, especially if you only read introductory material and pop-science books written for non-scientists. The reality, though, is that every real science puts a premium on quantifying doubt and uncertainty. Every result in science is presented with an estimation of how reliable that result is. Experimental errors are quantified. Tentative hypotheses are clearly flagged as such. Limitations in the application of theories are well known and widely publicised.

There may be some scientists out there who actually believe that our scientific understanding only needs some tweaking at the edges for completion. However, these would be a tiny minority, and I believe they are mistaken.

The conclusion above seems to buy into the "international scientific conspiracy" paranoia of the looney fringe. There is no such conspiracy. Scientists tend to be independent thinkers, and would soon blow the whistle if such a conspiracy actually existed.


Roman:

I'm a non-physicist, and I believe that most of you particle phsyicist are crackpot theorists with little empirical evidence to confrim the existance of 11 dimensions or the quark.

Have you checked up on what empirical evidence is available? In other words, have you done even the bare minimum of investigation before forming your opinion? I think not.

[MacM]

MacM:

I haven't bothered to read the whole article. The conclusion is enough to get this author's particular bias.

It is quite possible to get a sense that physicists and other scientists think they have it all worked out, especially if you only read introductory material and pop-science books written for non-scientists.

You would of course be talking about yourself and having not even read the material but made a conclusion based on a conclusion you don't like.

The reality, though, is that every real science puts a premium on quantifying doubt and uncertainty. Every result in science is presented with an estimation of how reliable that result is. Experimental errors are quantified. Tentative hypotheses are clearly flagged as such. Limitations in the application of theories are well known and widely publicised.

There may be some scientists out there who actually believe that our scientific understanding only needs some tweaking at the edges for completion. However, these would be a tiny minority, and I believe they are mistaken.

The conclusion above seems to buy into the "international scientific conspiracy" paranoia of the looney fringe. There is no such conspiracy. Scientists tend to be independent thinkers, and would soon blow the whistle if such a conspiracy actually existed.

Actually you would do well to read some specific cases and incidents. Then come back and tell me that there is not censorship on authors and experimental data that runs counter to the favored view in science.

While it certainly is not justified. I do believe there is defacto censorship, not necessarily a conspiracy, due to the negative impact upon jobs and funding if you rock the boat.

[James R]

MacM:

You would of course be talking about yourself and having not even read the material but made a conclusion based on a conclusion you don't like.

I was making a general comment unrelated to the specific material. I have now read the specific article you linked to, and it confirms my initial suspicions. It refers to many of the same sources you continually cite against relativity on sciforums, but without referring to any rebuttals of the information presented, of course. The author and the article are clearly biased.

While it certainly is not justified. I do believe there is defacto censorship, not necessarily a conspiracy, due to the negative impact upon jobs and funding if you rock the boat.

On the contrary, disproving the theory of relativity or the second law of thermodynamics, would earn any physicists untold prestige. And the benefits of cold fusion technology, if it actually existed, would be very great indeed.

The fact is, none of the things referred to in the article have stood up to expert scrutiny. They are simply peddled around by people who don't know any better, or who have chips on their shoulders.

(BTW, I voted "75%" on your poll, because I habitually take a skeptical approach to all new claims. Anybody who answered "100%" would probably not be a real scientist, but there was no option between 75 and 100.)

[MacM]

MacM:

I was making a general comment unrelated to the specific material. I have now read the specific article you linked to, and it confirms my initial suspicions. It refers to many of the same sources you continually cite against relativity on sciforums, but without referring to any rebuttals of the information presented, of course. The author and the article are clearly biased.

I saw a couple of names there as well. However, I am not looking at any one or even a few specific people. The facts are for example the case of "Cold Fusion". While that process is still in question as to being nuclear or not, there has been considerable advancement in that area and there is in fact many experiments, included government performed experiments, that produce anomolus excess heat. But the treament of those involved is openly negative.

On the contrary, disproving the theory of relativity or the second law of thermodynamics, would earn any physicists untold prestige. And the benefits of cold fusion technology, if it actually existed, would be very great indeed.

Here is where I think we see things differently. Most of these experiments are not perse efforts to overturn Relativity. They are experiments that have resulted in data that is inconsistant with Relativity. You seem to immediatley lable the person claiming such data a crank, fool,, etc. Many of the experiments have in fact been duplicated with positive results. It is most inappropriate to simply blow off such evidence and not pursue the facts.

How is it that you cannot see what mainstream science, you included, are doing. If a test of some sort is done and that data can be interpreted as proving or supporting Relativity, it is hailed loudly and placed on the list.

If a test produces data contrary to Relativity and is an invalidation, it is immediatly labled sloppy, incompetent, crack pots trying to disprove the holy graile and doesn't even get reviewed. No efforts to duplicate are made.

The fact is, none of the things referred to in the article have stood up to expert scrutiny. They are simply peddled around by people who don't know any better, or who have chips on their shoulders.

Certainly, it is these "Experts" that dictate what is and what is not acceptable evidence. All experimental data should be published and not filtered by a handfull of what clearly are Relativists. As this article points out many of the minority researchers actually disguish their work by picking names which do not raise red flags. i.e - "anomalous heat of...." rather than "Cold Fusion".

(BTW, I voted "75%" on your poll, because I habitually take a skeptical approach to all new claims. Anybody who answered "100%" would probably not be a real scientist, but there was no option between 75 and 100.)

Good I voted 50%. In my opinion there is a lot of good procedures but a lot of selective interpretation of the data. For example the radar data of planets which shows an excess delay in round trip time.

You take that as GR curving time-space and in suupport of Relativity. While it can just as well be evidence to invalidate Relativity by being a change in the speed of light in gravity fields. Failure, worse yet, refusal to allow that interpretation, is the bias being shown.

[§outh§tar]

I can almost 'feel' MacM's frustration.

Young earth creation scientists are in the same frying pan. :)

[MacM]

I can almost 'feel' MacM's frustration.

Young earth creation scientists are in the same frying pan. :)

HeHe. You got me for in this case I am one of those closed minded people that give no credability to the concept. :D

[geodesic]

Isn't that an oymoron?

[MacM]

Isn't that an oymoron?

Yep. :D

[Starman]

The following article is lengthy and touches many of the areas of competing views in science. It is a fair and balanced view giving the referances and qualifications of those both pro and con on major scientific issues.

In contrast to arguements put forth here, by those supportive of current scientific views in the Physics & Math Forum, that no such bias exists in the community, their conduct is a reflection of actual cases of real censorship in the scientific community.

Excellent read about events surrounding experiments that have challenged Cold Fusion, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, light invariance, MLET, etc.

A must read for anyone wanting to have a more informed view of the situation.

******************* Link with Extract Conclusion *************

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htm

Conclusions
There is widespread belief among physicists and non-physicists alike that physics has essentially "figured out" the universe. According to this "end of science" argument[75], all that remains to the great enterprise of science is to connect a few dots and do some fine-tuning. But the evidence discussed in this article suggests that this satisfactory state of affairs is a mere illusion created by the scientific establishment's habit of suppressing or ignoring disconfirming evidence, and that some of the most basic tenets of physics are in need of major revision.

************************************************** *****

MacM I realy can relate to this. A mind is like a parachute it only works when it is open. So many of great education are reluctant to acept change. This is inpart due to complacency with their teachings. If you have a masters in computer science from the 1980s it can be rather frustrating that today computers no longer use punch cards. I quess what I am trying to say is that the accepted scientific view should not be considered to be permanent or defended as such. Inspiration should remain at the forfront of science and exploration in the unknown should be the mission without barriers. We are entering a time of great things to come, that will change the way we view science today. One can say that we are only limmited to our imagination.

[sideshowbob]

A mind is like a parachute it only works when it is open.
Correction: A mind, like a parachute, has to be open at the right time and closed at the right time. Try getting out the door of the plane with your arms full of open parachute. And try getting it to open properly from that condition.

It's true that scientists, like most people, tend to get "set in their ways" as they get older. The computer punch card analogy is a good one.
But we're not using punch cards today, are we? Whatever flaws the system may have, it worked.

Imagination is fine, but it's no substitute for observation and logic.

[Starman]

Correction: A mind, like a parachute, has to be open at the right time and closed at the right time. Try getting out the door of the plane with your arms full of open parachute. And try getting it to open properly from that condition.

It's true that scientists, like most people, tend to get "set in their ways" as they get older. The computer punch card analogy is a good one.
But we're not using punch cards today, are we? Whatever flaws the system may have, it worked.

Imagination is fine, but it's no substitute for observation and logic.

Well now if you are in the plane your parachute is not working now is it sideshowbob. By saying that the system worked (past tense) are you implying that it is no longer working? Who mentioned substituting Imagination for observation and logic?

[sideshowbob]

Well now if you are in the plane your parachute is not working now is it sideshowbob.
No. And it ain't going to work, because it was open when it should have been closed. And when (if) you get to the ground safely with it, you're going to want to close it again, to avoid being dragged.

It's your analogy, not mine. You just didn't think it through.
By saying that the system worked (past tense) are you implying that it is no longer working?
Of course not. If I say that I had lunch yesterday, am I implying that I won't have lunch tomorrow?
On the contrary, if I say something worked yesterday, I am implying that it will work tomorrow, unless there is some compelling reason to think it won't.
Who mentioned substituting Imagination for observation and logic?
You implied that a lack of imagination is hampering today's scientists.
My view is that, given the choice between imagination or observation and logic, I would rather have them keep the observation and logic. Lack of imagination may slow down science, but lack of observation and logic will derail it completely.

By all means, add imagination to science, but not at the expense of what really makes science work.

[Starman]

No. And it ain't going to work, because it was open when it should have been closed. And when (if) you get to the ground safely with it, you're going to want to close it again, to avoid being dragged.

It's your analogy, not mine. You just didn't think it through.

Of course not. If I say that I had lunch yesterday, am I implying that I won't have lunch tomorrow?
On the contrary, if I say something worked yesterday, I am implying that it will work tomorrow, unless there is some compelling reason to think it won't.

You implied that a lack of imagination is hampering today's scientists.
My view is that, given the choice between imagination or observation and logic, I would rather have them keep the observation and logic. Lack of imagination may slow down science, but lack of observation and logic will derail it completely.

By all means, add imagination to science, but not at the expense of what really makes science work.

Sideshowbob my analogy of the parachute only refured to its working status and not prior or post working status.

I do not see how the imagination could ever hamper science.

I think being open minded is realy the point here and we have to rember to stay open minded even when our own pre-conseptions would limit imput from others.

[sideshowbob]

...my analogy of the parachute only refured to its working status and not prior or post working status.
You can't arbitrarily remove a closed/open parachute from its context and you can't arbitrarily remove a closed/open mind from its context either.
I do not see how the imagination could ever hamper science.
Take a look around these forums.
There are a lot of imaginative ideas for perpetual motion machines, etc. But it takes a mind that's closed to the impossibilities to design a machine that actually works.
I think being open minded is realy the point here and we have to rember to stay open minded even when our own pre-conseptions would limit imput from others.
No problem. Just don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out.