There was a repeat of an old James Burke programme the other night, in which he explained how science, since it is done by humans who live in human society, operates as much by cliques and consensus as by unbiased research. He said that any research that might (or did) result in knowledge that contradicted the orthodox view would likely be strangled at birth, or if not that, suppressed. How extraordinary that he made these observations before the great Global Warming Scam got under way.
Bill
This is undoubtably true, in part at least.
I really doubt that he said 'any' - I think your brain put that bit in.
silly non-sequitor.
For the first time ever(?), I find myself in agreement with R.Speed of this parish.
You might enjoy the old James Burke book 'Connections', which is interesting about the serendipitous events and situations that sometimes give rise to scientific (or other) progress.
J^n
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in most sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he termed, orthodoxy bias.
Brian
You only have to look at climate change to see that. Its worse for the public as the BBC refuses to publish stuff that doesn't agree with climate change.
They do tend to reject stuff from nutcases.
This is the classic case; a theory that was roundly rejected by the establishment, but ended up getting Nobel prizes for the chaps who persevered despite all the naysayers:
Yes I saw it, don't forget that Brian cox said he didn't agree with burkes view. He also applied the word scientist to those that faked and manupulated data to their own ends, a bit liokke climate change people have done.
I don;t believe that, but what is more difficult is that if you are going a gainst the grains as it were, you'd obviousdluy find it harder to be peer r eviewed by people that agree with you. As an example if you were to come up with proof that a giant spaghetti mon ster lived on the moon you might find it difficult getting enough people t o read your evidence. I'n not sure how many have reviewed david ickes theor ies that certain people are really lizards in human skin.
Thee was one recently where scientists thought they'd recorded something t ravleing faster than the speed of light. They didn't believe it themseleves either so asked for help in proving them seleves wrong or rather show them where the errors were.
Another example was plate tectonics, which was considered risible in the
1960s. As a junior school child I noticed that the continents would fit together pretty well. Years later I did an OU geology course at Durham and the lecturer said, "I am obliged by the new orthodoxy to teach plate tectonics, but you can take it from me it's bunkum."Bill
Just shows that some of their teaching isn't up to standard, working at a university it doesn't suprise me at all. Don't forget he was a teacher not a scientist.
I don't see any evidence that this theory was "roundly rejected by the establishment". See eg
What evidence do you have for that? If 95% of the specialists in a given subject believe in a given theory, it is reasonable to give 95% of air-time to them, and 5% to those who disbelieve in it. In my view that is more or less what is done.
They mocked when I pointed out that Anglesey had clearly been forced out of The Wash by a similar mechanism and 'tiddlywinked' into the Irish Sea.
They're not laughing now. Oh no.
Cheers
That's odd. I did Geology and Geophysics with the OU starting in 1972, its second year, and plate tectonics was being pushed hard hard as *the* theory.
Ok. That MUST be why Greenpeace get more airtime than climate scientists then...
While the IPCC would like us to believe that is the case, they don't actually publish the percentages, but use terms that include everything from 66% to 95% or, in many cases, 50% to 65%. Reading their reports very carefully, with experience of fudging official statistics, my view is that they are supported by only about 2 in 3 specialists and they only achieve that by very careful wording of the questions they ask them.
Whoever wrote that is being polite. I remember the derision that first met their findings.
Depends really on how good your data is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the scientific consensus works pretty well. The scientific method is ultimately self correcting and theories that are correct but have a tough time getting published do eventually become part of the orthodoxy - it just takes longer to occur.
Hubble's paper that effectively took down the Steady State Universe model didn't have much trouble getting published and neither did Penzias and Wilson's observations of the cosmic microwave background.
jobs and profits did not depend upon it.
Drug research is 100% corrupt. worlds second biggest industry
Climate research is 90% corrupt. Energy is worlds biggest industry.
Pure physics and cosmology is barely touched by these forces.
The decision to declare carbon dioxide a 'pollutant' is a multi-trillion dollar one. You can buy a lot of environmental groups, scientists and politicians for that.
Why would you *not*?
Yes, as I said, it was the new orthodoxy. It was in all the books and the TV programmes. But this particular guy didn't believe in it. My student number started with a B. What year would that be?
Bill
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.