Forbidden Science

[love]

I believe I have learnt a few things from this discussion.

It seems there is a tendancy for science to protect itself against change.

Part of this defensiveness manifests as a very real campaign to discredit authors who reveal dissenting information, rather than by simply pointing to the evidence.

This defensiveness also manifests as a very real campaign to stop others reading the works of the offending author. This can start as simply a refusal to publish. Alternative explanations, which misrepresent the views of the author are dreamt up to "debunk" the original work. This disuades the discerning individual from reading the original works.

The long term effect is that any body of evidence that contradicts the prevailing view is hidden from sight. Thus generation after generation of people are brought up educated with the prevailing view, with the dissenting results and opinions of others well out of their way.

I think the overall effect is to make science become a dogma, rather than an open-minded investigation.

 

[love]

So, love, where's the evidence of all this heating?

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...Part of this defensiveness manifests as a very real campaign to discredit authors who reveal dissenting information, rather than by simply pointing to the evidence....

What evidence have you presented that is real and verifiable (other than the writings... which are really opinions, no evidence)?

 

[bruto]

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.

I find this an astonishing statement. In what possible way can a book by Velikovsky be considered evidence of anything other than the fact that Velikovsky wrote books? It is, of course, possible to resolve criticism with error, but it is not ultimately very productive.

Saying Velikovsky's books constitute evidence of their own assertions is like suggesting that Luther's inkstain really was evidence of the devil.

By the way, in reference to your other statement that science resists change, I wonder why in that case you're so intent on sticking to work that's over 50 years old. Huge advances have been made in science in that time, but according to you, it appears the resistance to change in science means resistance to the idea that we should unlearn all that's been discovered in the past 50 years.

So now that some actual comet material has been brought to earth, how will you rationalize Velikovsky if the analysis contradicts his assertions?

 

[UrsulaV]

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.

Feel free to quote the books, then. If you believe that the heating issue is specifically addressed, then by all means, provide a quote!

Failing that, specific page numbers of which edition would be handy for those playing along at home...

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I believe I have learnt a few things from this discussion.

It seems there is a tendancy for science to protect itself against change.

Part of this defensiveness manifests as a very real campaign to discredit authors who reveal dissenting information, rather than by simply pointing to the evidence.

Wow. This statement is so disingenuous it's amazing.

How much evidence do you need? There are pages upon pages of evidence posted in this very thread by learned people showing why Velikovsky was wrong about most of his 'predictions', and why the most likely explanation was that he had one lucky guess.

The patience that posters have shown with you has been incredible. The fact that you will not acknowledge any of it is equally as incredible.

 

[homer]

I did read one of Velikovsky's books some years ago . It struck me as a weird fantasy with as much relationship to the real world ( Universe ) as The Lord of the Rings , which is about the way the earth used to be , isn't it ? (Irony )
Science is not against new ideas , old scientists sometimes are but they pass on to the great laboratory in the sky , leaving younger minds to accept or refute these new fangled notions . Things that were once outside science, like rocks falling from the sky ,are now accepted . So if there was anything in , say ESP, it would have been found by now .

 

[Correa Neto]

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.

Love, are you aware that there's no evidence for such an intense crustal heating episode in the geological record?

THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES BACKING VELIKOVSKY'S CLAIMS.

Read Velikovsky, read Hancock, read Krantz, read the Bible... Meh!

 

[Mojo]

It was also claimed by Scientific American that manned flight was impossible when the Wright brothers started making their experimental flying machines.

That's a rather odd thing for them to have said at that time. Manned flight had been going on since 1783!

 

[kookbreaker]

. It was also claimed by Scientific American that manned flight was impossible when the Wright brothers started making their experimental flying machines.

Love is another sad case of the historicly impaired.

Scientific American never, ever, ever, ever claimed that flying was impossible.*

They did however, express strong doubts that the Wright brothers flew. Not suprising as the evidence for their flight from 1902 to 1906 was a photograph and a handful of witnesses, none of whom were scientific experts.

The Wright brothers behavior, at the time, was definately indicative of the acts of con-artists. With hindsight we can see that they were legitimately trying to protect their patent in an age where rampant theft of inventions was a major issue. But at the time their refusal to fly was looked upon, rightly with suspicion.

Claiming that suspicion of the Wright Brothers is the equivelant of saying the flight was impossible is like claiming that someone thinks that Automobiles can't possibly work becuase they don't the used-car salesman down the street.

Love's idiocy is the tragedy of the historicly impaired.


*It is often claimed that it was a 'scientific fact' that planes could not fly. Lord Kelvin is claimed to have said flying machines were impossible. He never actually said this. He did say he had no faith in aeronautics to the aeronautic society, but this was less faith in the society than in the possibility of flight.**

** A paper from the late 19th century is alleged by would be 'skeptic busters' to be science's claim that flying machines were impossible. In fact the paper merely pointed out that the engines of the age could not deliver sufficient power to obtain flight. They were correct, as several would-be flight pioneers discovered to their dismay. Later lighter and more powerful engines became available intime for the Wright brother's work.***

*** As skeptics go, the least quoted skeptic of flight by self-styled 'skeptic busters' would be Wilbur Wright, who is quoted as saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years.".

 

[bruto]

** A paper from the late 19th century is alleged by would be 'skeptic busters' to be science's claim that flying machines were impossible. In fact the paper merely pointed out that the engines of the age could not deliver sufficient power to obtain flight. They were correct, as several would-be flight pioneers discovered to their dismay. Later lighter and more powerful engines became available intime for the Wright brother's work.***

Indeed, though "available" may be a bit misleading. The Wrights, and their chief mechanic Charles Taylor, designed their own engine. Nowadays a 152 pound 16 horsepower engine seems pretty primitive, but at that time, it was a radical lightweight design using light alloys, tubular connecting rods and various other innovations.

 

[Rodney]

Love is another sad case of the historicly impaired.

Scientific American never, ever, ever, ever claimed that flying was impossible.*

They did however, express strong doubts that the Wright brothers flew. Not suprising as the evidence for their flight from 1902 to 1906 was a photograph and a handful of witnesses, none of whom were scientific experts.

The Wright brothers behavior, at the time, was definately indicative of the acts of con-artists. With hindsight we can see that they were legitimately trying to protect their patent in an age where rampant theft of inventions was a major issue. But at the time their refusal to fly was looked upon, rightly with suspicion.

Claiming that suspicion of the Wright Brothers is the equivelant of saying the flight was impossible is like claiming that someone thinks that Automobiles can't possibly work becuase they don't the used-car salesman down the street.

Love's idiocy is the tragedy of the historicly impaired.


*It is often claimed that it was a 'scientific fact' that planes could not fly. Lord Kelvin is claimed to have said flying machines were impossible. He never actually said this. He did say he had no faith in aeronautics to the aeronautic society, but this was less faith in the society than in the possibility of flight.**

** A paper from the late 19th century is alleged by would be 'skeptic busters' to be science's claim that flying machines were impossible. In fact the paper merely pointed out that the engines of the age could not deliver sufficient power to obtain flight. They were correct, as several would-be flight pioneers discovered to their dismay. Later lighter and more powerful engines became available intime for the Wright brother's work.***

*** As skeptics go, the least quoted skeptic of flight by self-styled 'skeptic busters' would be Wilbur Wright, who is quoted as saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years.".

Your attempt to pretend that the scientific establishment didn't actively oppose the Wright Brothers' claim of heavier than air flight is "historicly impaired." As Richard Milton notes at http:/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm:
"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.

 

[Rolfe]

However, I'm beginning to harbour doubts about Richard Milton's factual accuracy. Do you have any other source for these assertions?

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

However, I'm beginning to harbour doubts about Richard Milton's factual accuracy. Do you have any other source for these assertions?

Rolfe.

Especially since he is the author cited in the original post of this thread!!!!

Edit to add: Actually all one would have to do is go to a good library that had American Scientific magazine that goes back that far. Sorry, I am not volunteering.

Edit again... I did not even have look long to find out the Richard Milton quote is more full of hot air than a zeppelin: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/wbscrapbooks.html

 

[PixyMisa]

It's in Velikovsky's books.

As I said, most of the criticisms raised here can be resolved by reading Velikovsky.

Then do so, and tell us what it is.

Based on what you have told us so far, Velikovsky's ideas are irredeemable nonsense.

 

[bruto]

Your attempt to pretend that the scientific establishment didn't actively oppose the Wright Brothers' claim of heavier than air flight is "historicly impaired." As Richard Milton notes at http:/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm:
"Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

"In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

In other words, the same attitude that most members of Randi's organization have today.

That may well be, but there's a pretty obvious difference here. Many scientists guessed wrong before they saw the evidence. Considering how radical some of the technology was for its time skepticism was not so unexpected. The Wrights were very cautious, and anticipated patent problems (and not without cause); they did not publicize their test flights, and as far as I've seen they did not solicit support from the scientific community or anyone else during the time they were developing the airplane, preferring to work, if not in total secrecy, certainly without publicity. After the perfection of the 1905 flyer, the Wrights did not perform any flights at all while they applied for a patent. If dubious scientists were awaiting a demonstration, they can be excused for remaining dubious, because they certainly were not going to get one from the Wrights. They refused to demonstrate the machine at all until they had both a patent and a potential buyer. It was only in 1908, when other potential rivals appeared close to success (and after they had both their patent and a government contract), that the Wrights went public in Europe, and as soon as they did this, it obviously put a permanent end to all skepticism about the possibility of powered flight.

So what if Scientific American was wrong? Flight did happen, and it was real, and it was repeatable. Scientists wanted evidence. They got it. End of story. Skepticism did not survive past the public demonstration of flight, did it? The time period between the Wrights' first 12-second liftoff and the public trials was less than five years, including the two year hiatus during which they did not fly at all. A year after the Wrights flew publicly, the U.S. government was purchasing planes from the Wrights. Hardly an example of nasty old science and skepticism squashing the truth, when you think about it.

 

[CurtC]

The main issues with Pons & Fleischmann was when Quantum Mechanics say, that the process they have seen and claimed to have happened is impossible to take place at that sort of temperature, but the 2 inventors insisted that it did. That was what alarmed scientists of the day, because they have overthrown Quantum Mechanics. At the end Quantum Mechanics stayed true to its prediction and overthrew the 2 scientists from their academic professions.

Not exactly. The idea of cold fusion wouldn't violate any known laws, and in fact would be the holy grail of fusion research. However, from the outset, it was very suspicious that P&F never published their techniques in any journal, but announced it via a press conference. That didn't win them any friends in the scientific community.

Pretty soon, the idea collapsed because a) the reaction didn't seem to give off neutrons, which would be required in fusion, and b) no other labs could replicate it.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...So what if Scientific American was wrong? Flight did happen, and it was real, and it was repeatable. Scientists wanted evidence. They got it. End of story. Skepticism did not survive past the public demonstration of flight, did it? The time period between the Wrights' first 12-second liftoff and the public trials was less than five years, including the two year hiatus during which they did not fly at all. A year after the Wrights flew publicly, the U.S. government was purchasing planes from the Wrights. Hardly an example of nasty old science and skepticism squashing the truth, when you think about it.

[derail] They also had good reason to worry. Since many competitors came by with their own heavier-than-air flying machines. The Wright brothers spent quite a bit of time protecting their patents... specifically the "wing warping" that allowed them to fly WHERE they wanted to be. It was one thing to get a plane off the ground, it was completely another problem keeping the aircraft stable AND to be able to be turned. But that was their downfall... in that OTHER innovators figured out better control services in the long than they did. See http://www.wrightstories.com/afterwards.html (and the guy who outdid the stabilizers ... his name was on the name of a company that made autopilots that almost survived to the 21st century, until a takeover).
[/derail]

 

[burrahobbit]

I believe I have learnt a few things from this discussion.

You believe wrong. As usual.

On the Wright Brothers story

I dont see what the Wright brothers have to do with this. While it may be true that some scientists were sceptical of the possibility of heavier than air flight, I seem to recall that at the time of the Wrights flight there were a number of people in Europe (Lilienthal et al) who were pursuing the same goal.

That does not look like "the establishment refusing to believe that powered flight is impossible"

 

[burrahobbit]

The objections to idea that man could survive the Earth slowing down remind seem similiar in character to earlier misconceptions. When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph.

Not by anyone scientific (AFAIK). I think a galloping horse even carrying a rider exceeds 15mph.

Typical of the "factoids" thrown around by woo supporters. They successfully derail the conversation. In the ideal case, they even "win" an argument if no knowledgeable person is around. This last however, is astronomically improbable in this forum.