Forbidden Science

[blutoski]

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt? Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong?

No, it's because they started out very polite, but realized the critics were not sincere. You see this on this forum from time to time. The critic pretends to be just curious, then over time, their agenda reveals itself, they make ugly accusations (such as the snarky accusation that curtness must be evidence that somebody is "insecure").

People ask the same thing about why, for example, JR comes across as so cranky. The answer is: because he's met the lowest of the low and has concluded that patience and politeness are rarely reciprocated.

Once bitten; twice shy.


This isn't an excuse for outright rudeness, but when confronted with "only idiots or robots refuse to accept that I can fly", there's no obligation to provide a polite response.

 

[blutoski]

When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph.

This has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever read.

It's an exaggeration, and vague anyway. It was not a scientific claim: it was the claim of altmed quacks, religous nuts, and blowhards with newspaper columns that travelling over 60mph was very dangerous. This is why the public called them "locomotives" - "crazy motion". It was the cat-in-the-microwave urban legend of its day. It didn't impact their ongoing scientific development. "you'll leave your soul behind" didn't sound very persuasive to engineers.

There are other "cards" that get played:

* the Galileo card - people seem to think that Galileo was vilified by his scientific peers. Galileo was a scientific celebrity, and ran into trouble when he contradicted the Vatican.

* the bee's can't fly card - obscure comment that is exaggerated by antiscience critics as having been an actual claim

* the Columbus card - scientists *did* laugh at Columbus. As it turns out, they were right - Japan isn't 1,000km West of Spain after all.

* the Einstein card - the portrayal of a scientist railing against a stubborn system. Does this make sense? The paradigm shift was swift and he was given Nobel prizes. The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life.

 

[brodski]

The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life.

yeah, a predilection for herbalism and crystal healing was the very worst thing about the Nazis.

Mind you The reich to last 1000 years, does seem to have been the original "new age"

 

[blutoski]

Venus being hot, and having a hydrocarbon atmosphere are evidence for Venus having been comet.

That's ridiculous. Comets are cold (a good shorthand description of a comet is: "an iceball") They are too small to have atmospheres. They originate from the perimeter of the solar system and have very long orbits. They are composed mostly of a mushy mix of small rocks glued together with material that was probably liquid when the comet was formed (back to the "iceball" analogy). They are never solid rock.

The sun is hot and has a hydrocarbon atmosphere. Is it a comet? These criteria are irrelevant to comet-ness.


Venus:
* does not have a "hydrocarbon" atmosphere anyway

* the surface temperature is hotter than expected, which has a perfectly ordinary explanation, but the overall planetary temperature is cooler than Velikovsky predicted, and his theory cannot explain that

 

[bruto]

It's an exaggeration, and vague anyway. It was not a scientific claim: it was the claim of altmed quacks, religous nuts, and blowhards with newspaper columns that travelling over 60mph was very dangerous. This is why the public called them "locomotives" - "crazy motion". It was the cat-in-the-microwave urban legend of its day. It didn't impact their ongoing scientific development. "you'll leave your soul behind" didn't sound very persuasive to engineers.

There are other "cards" that get played:

* the Galileo card - people seem to think that Galileo was vilified by his scientific peers. Galileo was a scientific celebrity, and ran into trouble when he contradicted the Vatican.

* the bee's can't fly card - obscure comment that is exaggerated by antiscience critics as having been an actual claim

* the Columbus card - scientists *did* laugh at Columbus. As it turns out, they were right - Japan isn't 1,000km West of Spain after all.

* the Einstein card - the portrayal of a scientist railing against a stubborn system. Does this make sense? The paradigm shift was swift and he was given Nobel prizes. The only time he really ran into grief was when altmedders and antiscience cranks took over the German government and he had to flee for his life.

Nice, except I think you'll find the root word for "locomotive" is "locus" for place, not "loco" for crazy. And of course the Nazis hated Einstein because he was Jewish.

 

[blutoski]

The issue is not whether there are traces of Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of venus (AFAIK there are not but I am not an expert). The issue is whether there is enough to explain manna etc.

And whether the connection is even plausible. When hydrocarbons are exposed to Earth's atmosphere, what happens today?

eg: when you spill gasoline, does it turn into manna?


Also, note: the claim has shifted akwardly:

"fact: venus has a hydrocarbon atmosphere"
"possibility: venus may have traces of hydrocarbons somewhere in its atmosphere, although we haven't found them for looking"

Yet, these are both considered 100% consistent with Velikovsky's claims!

 

[blutoski]

Nice, except I think you'll find the root word for "locomotive" is "locus" for place, not "loco" for crazy. And of course the Nazis hated Einstein because he was Jewish.

re: locomotive. Duly noted.

re: Einstein. Einstein was not the only scientist persecuted by the Reich for supporting Quantum and Relativity, and only a few of them were Jewish. German scientific progress ground to a halt in the 1930s because only 'German' theories were given support. eg: the resurgence of homeopathy.

 

[blutoski]

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

I didn't see this one. This is also a 'card'. Similar to the bees-can't-fly card (I guess it's a people-can't-fly card)

SA claimed that the Wright brothers were lying, but not about flight being "possible". They were at the time, offerenig a prize for demonstrating manned flight, because they were so confident it was an emerging technology.

The controversy was that the Wright brothers made their announcement after some other inventors had publicly demonstrated flight, but their claim was that they had flown *first*. They had conducted their tests in secret, and SA felt they were claiming to be first in order to grab prize money and patents.

Fortunately, the Wright brothers were able to substantiate their claim, and were ultimately vindicated.

 

[blutoski]

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.

Yes, but be aware that Dumont had been flying since 1905 in front of everybody. Roosevelt 'ordered' trials, because he wanted a proper demo before buying. The Army had already agreed to purchase several Wright planes.

"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.

I think their exact quote was about the press not being present at the demonstrations, and the Wrights had refused to do demos in front of reputed witnesses. I'd have been skeptical, too.

Remember, the dispute was not about whether flight was possible: it was doubting their claim to having secret success before their competiors went public.

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

Maybe you could keep the insults to yourself.

 

[bruto]

Yes, but be aware that Dumont had been flying since 1905 in front of everybody. Roosevelt 'ordered' trials, because he wanted a proper demo before buying. The Army had already agreed to purchase several Wright planes.

I think their exact quote was about the press not being present at the demonstrations, and the Wrights had refused to do demos in front of reputed witnesses. I'd have been skeptical, too.

Remember, the dispute was not about whether flight was possible: it was doubting their claim to having secret success before their competiors went public.

Maybe you could keep the insults to yourself.

We beat this subject about for a while earlier in the thread. Don't count on Rodney or Love to have actually understood, though. Of course, looked at the right way, the early skepticism of some people, until the Wrights demonstrated their ability to fly with control, and the subsequent retraction by S.A., would, to anyone but Rodney and Love, suggest that scientific skepticism was working just as it ought to. Somehow the alternative-science guys just don't get it. If someone once doubted that flight was possible, this must mean that skepticism is wrong, and we should accept every crackpot theory that comes down the pike.

 

[Rodney]

How about we take a quick look at Cayce's legacy, shall we? First, we'll take a peek at Cayce's unique contributions to modern medicine:

-Bupkis

Now we'll go right to the source:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/

Impressive...

-Past life readings, the (neverending) search for Atlantis, astrology charts, etc...

Here's an example of Cayce's legacy of cutting edge medical advice:



Genius. Sheer genius.

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it?

 

[Rodney]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you missed an essential bit of my quote:

The key here is "peer-reviewed," as in a scientific journal. Not a popular-press book.

How many "scientific journals" are open to concepts that radically undermine the conventional wisdom that those journals have promoted for years?

 

[bruto]

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it?

There's no study refuting the assertion that there's a pink giraffe in my closet either. You have it backwards.

You don't need a study refuting a crackpot theory. You need a study (not a bunch of anecdotes from the people promiting it) confirming it. Do you know of such a study? I very much doubt it.

 

[burrahobbit]

There is also no study refuting the theory that drinking your own urine every day cures you of all ills. There is anecdotal evidence of at least one guy who did it every day living to past 90 in perfect health.

Maybe Rodney should try it

 

[burrahobbit]

Einsteins theory was revolutionary and did undermine the "conventional wisdom" He was also a patent clerk in an obscure office and not linked with any University.

He did not seem to have that much trouble getting published in "Annalen der Physik" which was a fairly reputable journal.

Genuine scientific breakthroughs always get published. I know of no currently accepted theory that was totally rejected in the early stages. Treated with some skepticism yes, but it was published in peer reviewed journals and argued out there.

 

[PixyMisa]

How many "scientific journals" are open to concepts that radically undermine the conventional wisdom that those journals have promoted for years?

All of them - if you have actual physical evidence of your claims.

 

[PixyMisa]

How exactly, do you know, that Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment doesn't work? Do you know of a study refuting it?

Simple: His description of the cause of the disease is wrong in every possible way, and his treatment can have no possible effect on either his supposed cause or on the disease as it actually is.

The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system

Thinning of the intestinal walls is not correlated with psoriasis.

which allows the escaping of poisons

Psoriasis is not caused by, and does not cause, poisons or poisoning of any sort.

or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same

Psoriasis does not involve the mucous membranes.

and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body.

Psoriasis does not involve the lymphatic system.

The conditions that exist through the thinning of the walls of the intestines allow the poisons to find expressions in the lymph circulation; thus producing the irritation to and through the epidermis itself...

A restatement of previous points, every single one of which is wrong.

One of the primary causes of thinned intestinal walls identified by Edgar Cayce are problems with the spine.

Spinal problems do not cause thinning of the intestinal walls.

Pressures on certain spinal nerves (particularly the mid-dorsal area) can compromise the nerve energy to the intestinal tract.

There is no such thing as "nerve energy" to be compromised.

Osteopathic or chiropractic treatment can help correct the misalignment of spinal vertebrae and improve nerve functioning.

No it can't. It can, however, cause nerve damage.

 

[Rodney]

Simple: His description of the cause of the disease is wrong in every possible way, and his treatment can have no possible effect on either his supposed cause or on the disease as it actually is.

Thinning of the intestinal walls is not correlated with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is not caused by, and does not cause, poisons or poisoning of any sort.

Psoriasis does not involve the mucous membranes.

Psoriasis does not involve the lymphatic system.

A restatement of previous points, every single one of which is wrong.

Spinal problems do not cause thinning of the intestinal walls.

There is no such thing as "nerve energy" to be compromised.

No it can't. It can, however, cause nerve damage.

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor? You might try checking out the following link: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS

The Meridian Institute is run by a medical doctor named Eric Mein, who applies the principles set forth in the Cayce Readings. The above link cites a document titled "Psoriasis Case Reports", which states:

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

 

[Mojo]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor? You might try checking out the following link: http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS

The Meridian Institute is run by a medical doctor named Eric Mein, who applies the principles set forth in the Cayce Readings. The above link cites a document titled "Psoriasis Case Reports", which states:

"The Edgar Cayce readings say that, although it appears to be a skin disease, most cases of psoriasis are caused by toxins from the digestive system. There is a thinning of the walls of the small intestine, and this thinning allows toxins to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation. These eventually find their way to the superficial circulation, and trigger an immune response in the skin.

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

A site dedicated to the validation of Cayce's ideas, apparently.

Statement of Purpose:

The goal of Meridian Institute is to expand the meeting ground between science and spirit by conducting and sponsoring clinical and basic science research. We intend to examine concepts about the body compatible with the premise that we are spiritual beings, and to approach the healing process from this perspective.

The body of information that will be researched and used as a guide for directing our work will be the Edgar Cayce health readings. Now over fifty years old, they provide a coherent and consistent physiology of how the body functions in health and disease. These health readings have never been fully researched in a modern, scientific manner that would provide data acceptable to all healthcare professionals and agencies.

Do you have anything a little more independent? If Pagano can really do this sort of thing via chiropractic, his work is truly ground-breaking. Has he managed any peer-reviewed publication of his findings?

 

[bruto]

Where do you get your expertise? Are you a medical doctor?

Are you?

"In the past several years, medical research has provided some evidence supporting the Cayce perspective, but the only person to have systematically applied the Cayce recommendations for treatment is Dr. John Pagano, a New Jersey chiropractor who wrote the book Healing Psoriasis: The Natural Alternative. Dr. Pagano has many well-documented cases of complete healing of severe psoriasis."

A chiropracter is not a medical doctor either, you know.

It's really pretty simple. If this treatment were not quackery, and if it made any sense, these "well documented" cases would in fact be well documented, which means that they would be suitable for peer review, publishable, repeatable by others, and if they worked, they would be a medical breakthrough heartily welcomed by the medical community at large and practiced by more than one single chiropracter. Are they? It sure doesn't look that way. Any quack can write a book.