ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/16/85)
Patrick Wyant of Bell Labs writes: > To the public, the issues of elections and voting are very important >democratic principles. But, what are the issues suitable for a public >referendum? While science is not monolithic or a dictatorship, it does behave >as an oligarchy. In politics, the U.S. was established as a republic so that >a few people might inform themselves of the issues and make policy decisions >which are binding on all. Science has become a similar arrangement, with its >own culture and values. Now it appears as if parts of the general public want >a recall of the scientific society because of its failure to support the >fundamentalist Christian agenda. Congratulations Mr. Wyant. That's hitting the nail pretty squarely over the head. Does this surprise anybody? Remember, amongst other things, we're talking about what gets taught in the public schools. It surprises ME that this hasn't happened sooner. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Dale Crowley, and all of their friends aren't going away anytime soon. The Supreme Court five years hence is likely to be more conservative than anything we've seen. After they've reversed the Wade-Roe decision and taken care of prayer in the schools, they're going to be looking around for further sources of amusement and it's unlikely that the the teaching of evolution will escape their notice. I don't believe it's a question of whether creationism will be taught; I believe it's a question of whether evolution will still be taught. Crippled and botched theories such as Darwinian evolution and the principle of uniformity generally will be about as much of an ally to scientists in this struggle as 15 year old welfare mothers are an ally to people involved in the civil rights struggle. Scientists are likely to discover that, aside from being correct, Immanuel Velikovsky with his notion of catastrophic evolution represents the only chance they have to do anything other than spend the rest of their lives coming in last. I actually prefer open debates and decision making to the dealings of secret societies, myself. In a recent article on the net, I wrote: >My own training was in >science (math) and not religion. I wouldn't feel >good about publishing in a journal "refereed" by >"scientists" in the case of the creation-evolution >debate. I would prefer well attended debates with >members of the press present as was the case in >Roanoke. I know "scientists" a little bit too well. Wm. Jefferys, of the UT Astronomy dept., in an article which should have been titled "Signs by which ye might know the Pseudo-Scientist", states that this is a sure sign of the pseudo-scientist. I look for pentagrams and hammer-sickle devices embroidered on the suspects bvd's myself. But I'm not worried. In liking open dealings, I'm in good company. All ancient Greeks, our founding fathers, and all philosophers living and dead would agree with me. Consider the company Mr. Jefferys is in with his preference for back rooms, closely gaurded journals, and the secret societies of "experts". He is in the company of the Communist Party of the USSR, Richard Nixon, the leaders of Nazi Germany, all members of the KKK, living and dead, Thomas de Torquemada, the Jesuit Order and everyone involved in the inquisitions, and on and on as far back as you'd like to go. Astronomy in 20'th century America is about as closed an organization as it is possible to have anymore. The following article is quoted in it's entirety. It was addressed to the editors of the Kronos Journal from a Mr. J.M. McCanney of Roseville, MN. ............................................................... ............................................................... From the Kronos Journal, volumn X Number 3, Summer 1985 A renowned British physicist recently wrote to me concerning his confrontation with editors of a popular astronomy magazine. He stated that "there is far too much evidence of suppression of papers which do not take the now orthodox Oort-Whipple (ice-ball comet) model as an axiomatic starting point....It does make one wonder if Astronomy qualifies as a science!". In 1980, in a letter of rejection to a paper submitted for publication which predicted electric fields near the planet Saturn (the paper was subsequently published elsewhere), a journal editor scolded me for not following "the scientific method". He explained that one must start with accepted theory as presented in the respected journals, reference it properly, and add any new work to this frame-work. He added that the workings of Saturn's ring system were well understood and that there was no need to consider electrical phenomena. Four months later, Voyager I reached the electrified planet Saturn and sent back what some scientists consider the most mishandled data in the history of modern science. What are the axioms of Astronomy. They are the basic concepts around which theory and data must conform as seen by traditionally educated scientists. They are: - the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago and the order of the planets has not changed since (first stated by the mathematician LaPlace). - the universe began in a "big bang" about 10 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding ever since (first stated by Hubble at the turn of the century). - Gravity is the sole force that governs the cosmos (first stated by Newton). - Comets are frozen balls of ice which melt when near the sun (first stated by Kepler). All other accepted theories of Astronomy such as the Venus Greenhouse Effect, and scores of others, as well as theories in Geology (i.e., plate tectonics), Archeology, and Evolutionary Biology have been developed to conform with these axioms. Literally all data from space probes are interpreted by NASA scientists to support the axioms. The popular science magazines and newspapers force-feed the public with scientific hype, constantly referring to these axioms. Under the axioms, a great many predictions have been made about the expected state of the cosmos. But what happens when data from new work of research contradicts the expectations of the axioms? There are three possible courses of action: 1) re- consider the basic axiomatic structure, 2) rationalize the data to support the axioms by creating after the fact ad-hoc theories, or 3) sweep the data under the rug. Unfortunately, the peer editing systems of our scientific journals only support the last two possibilities. There is a reason for this. These axioms have formed the cornerstones of astronomical belief at least since the early 1900s. The fonts of western knowledge lie in the universities where tradition and the respected scientific journals are based. The strict hierarchy of advancement (from graduate student to aged tenured professor) forces underlings to comply with this protocol. Dissenters and original thinkers have no place in this structure. One is only granted permission to build on the existing caste system. Change cannot be expected, however necessary or justified, within this framework. A thorough look at the astronomy journals shows that they are filled with papers based on the standard axioms, but the axioms are never questioned. How embarrassing might it be if it were discovered that 80 years of published papers were erroneous (especially after censoring and publically ridiculing those who may later be viewed as correct)? Every gradeschooler has heard how the now heralded theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and even Einstein (as well as countless others in other fields) were met with closed doors by the seats of knowledge of their day. Secondly, this is a closed system. These groups reign as "the experts", generally controlling the flow of publishable material to their journals and the popular media. They do not allow those in other fields to cross the interdisciplinary boundaries; they control the new personnel who enter the field and those who seek employment in the field. They are approached by the mass media to inform the public, and form core groups such as NASA and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They control who is allowed to referee articles to be published; they receive the government grants to perform new research, and they present the results of their research in the journals which are controlled by their peer groups. It is a closed system. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in this case, there are very few. Anyone outside the system who dares to contradict is easily labelled a non-expert (commonly name-calling occurs such as a crackpot, pseudoscientist, etc.). Who is the man on the street to believe. Insiders who defect can be singled out and eliminated. No one will offer public support since the same fate may befall them. It should not be surprising that the axioms of Astronomy have remained unaltered over the course of this century, even in spite of remarkable finds of recent space probes. One can only anticipate that future finds from space, including those of upcoming comet fly-bys, will yield the unexpected...but watch with precognition as the experts will claim them to support the axioms of Astronomy. END OF QUOTED LETTER ................................................................. ................................................................. Did Immanuel Velikovsky ever have a fair hearing from these people? Get serious. I'd rather try to sell boiling water in Hell than to try to sell astronomists a right idea, which is what Velikovsky tried to do.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/18/85)
In article <374@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > Scientists are likely to discover > that, aside from being correct, Immanuel Velikovsky with his > notion of catastrophic evolution represents the only chance they > have to do anything other than spend the rest of their lives > coming in last. .....stuff about suppression in the scientific community...... > Did Immanuel Velikovsky ever have a fair hearing from these people? > Get serious. I'd rather try to sell boiling water in Hell than to > try to sell astronomists a right idea, which is what Velikovsky > tried to do. Your bits on suppression of ideas are very apt. Velikovsky is, however, a raving loonie. I hope the scientific community doesn't have to fall back on him to save themselves in the schools! -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/19/85)
I won't comment on the rest of your article, but the following is pure BS: > may later be viewed as correct)? Every gradeschooler has heard > how the now heralded theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, > Newton, and even Einstein (as well as countless others in other > fields) were met with closed doors by the seats of knowledge of > their day. Any gradeschooler who has heard this has heard wrong. Copernicus and Galileo were rejected by the church, not the scientific establishment (weak as it may have been in comparison). Kepler came up with a simpler theory that solved problems the old, epicyclic, theory couldn't. This is the first I have heard that he was rejected out of hand. Newton was a respected scientist and a member of the highest scientific academy of the day. Einstein recieved the Nobel Prize for work performed before he discovered the theories for which he is now famous. The only people who closed their doors on him were the Nazis who were suspicious of "Jewish Science". The only person who might fit your description os Gregor Mendel. As it turns out he actually made up most of his data out of whole cloth... it's no surprise he remained in obscurity. What well known unsolved problem does your theory explain... something that nobody else has come up with a consistant explanation for? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076