Heretics of Science
Posted by kamarling at 22:35, 25 Oct 2009Hi everyone,
You might have noticed a previous Blog entry of mine in which I commented on the treatment of Rupert Sheldrake at the hands of sceptics, particularly his "friend", Chris French. I was encouraged to see subsequent articles on the same subject with links to the Skeptiko podcast, etc.
Other scientists in the field of consciousness research and paranormal investigations have receieved similar, if not worse, treatment from the scientific orthodoxy. I'm thinking particularly of the likes of Gary Schwartz and Dean Radin. Now we might be forgiven for thinking that the establishment reserves its scorn and ire for the gullible cranks out there on the fringe working on that silly parapsychology nonsense. But it seems that the great and wise of the orthodoxy cannot bear ANY dissent, even from cosmologists, physicists and astronomers.
Here is a link to an open letter, published in the New Scientist, in response to the treatment they received after daring to question the Big Bang theory. Does this look somewhat familiar?
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Dave.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- kamarling's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
21 February 2009
1 day 2 hours
There's been no comments on this so i guess everyone agrees!
I agree with the principle that research funding should be distributed in a way that allows new ideas to be funded. I doubt you'd find too many people that disagree'd. Next is where to go from that general principle. Obviously research grants are in short supply; there is not an infinite amount of cash. Having said that perhaps it would be useful to fund some of these things to find out once and for all.
One thing i would like to see is the presentations given to the funding councils. That might open up new debate in why some things are not funded.
The notion that NO dissent is allowed is quite ridiculous. There is a preference for certain alternative ideas in these realms and admittedly it is those ideas that are suffering at the moment, but i have seen many papers published over the past decade that would change the whole landscape of various fields if true, indeed, these landscapes have changed because of new and contrary research.
In New Scientist these include quite a few variable speed of light models, alternative big bang models and multi-dimensional, multi universe, or parallel universe models.
I agree that at first glance it is hard to see why those might get published and not ideas of the 'universal OM' or the 'philosophers stone'. It could be fashion, but it could also be the quality of the data and research evidencing these ideas. Throwing money at alternative research might rectify this, but it is up to alternative researchers to convince funding councils that this is the way to go. This is the normal battle and is no different to anyone else or any other ideas.
In interviews with the leading lights they often make quite extraordinary claims and provide very poor data in support (really they are often just suggesting possibility). If a scientist were to do this in any field he probably would not win grants (unless the backer was hoping for something in particular with commercial/military gain in mind etc). I wouldnt want any specific person to be given grant money just because their idea was the most 'far out' or the strangest. So which one should we fund, and why? (i also think the best people to decide are those educated in the subject - let a physicist decide on plasma cosmology). Having said all that- privately funded research is common. If you think back to the very early days of science most of it was privately funded. This is maybe what it is necessary before specific alternative theories can compete. (i would caution against just wishing for funding for the whole lot, thats more of an us and them appeal and things get funded on their own merit; we shouldn't fund mainstream based on it not being alternative and we shouldn't fund alternative based on it not being mainstream).
My last point is with the letter itself, from a laypersons perspective you would think that the big bang theory was a hodge-podge botch held together by alterations based on observation and with no predictive power itself. I guarantee its use and history is more complex than that.
26 June 2005
2 days 21 hours
Hi Daydreamer.
Oddly enough, I have just paused a TV rerun of the X-Files Movie from 1998. Mulder has just told Scully that it has been her rationalism and science that saved him from himself - made him whole. I think you are performing a bit of the Scully role here, if I may say so. Certainly, I enjoy your reasonable approach which is refreshing considering the vitriol that passes to and fro on other forums.
A couple of points I'd like to ask you about from your response, however:
1.
"Throwing money at alternative research might rectify this, but it is up to alternative researchers to convince funding councils that this is the way to go.
Isn't that the whole point of the letter? Aren't they claiming that these councils are biased and stacked with pro-establishment figures?
2.
" ... they often make quite extraordinary claims and provide very poor data in support (really they are often just suggesting possibility)."
Just how do you know that? Have you been present or read the transcripts of these meetings? Are you such an expert yourself, as to be able to decide which are extraordinary claims and which is poor data? This is exactly the kind of "trust me, I'm a sceptic" argument put forward by Chris French when he attempted to devalue the work of Sheldrake. Sheldrake, of course, denied that his data was poor.
I take your point about the history of the Big Bang theory although I didn't make any claim to support one view or the other: I was just trying to highlight the similarities between what they had to say in the letter and the pleading for fairness expressed by the paranormal researchers. By the way, I'm re-reading "Cosmic Coincidences" by John Gribbin and Martin Rees so that I can better understand the history (although it may be a bit out of date by now).
Thank you again for your response.
Dave.
Wanted: More White Crows ... http://whitecrows.davidsmuse.co.uk
22 November 2004
2 weeks 11 hours
With these complaints of lack of funding, those seeking funding should say what they want it for.
Some researchers need to do experiments. Superconducting colliders, orbiting telescopes and such things. Or just renting time on any kind of telescope, this costs money.
Other researchers, namely most theorists, just need to make a living, access to publications (professional publications are expensive to read), maybe travel to conferences and such. Computers and software, the modern day equivalents of paper and pencil.
Many researchers need to pay students as research assistants.
So when I see a blanket statement that lack of funding is keeping someone from developing ideas further, or developing more convincing proof - what would they do with the money, to advance towards these goals?
----
We are the cat.