Nexus - 1102 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

SUPPRESSED DISCOVERIES IN PHYSICS SUPPRESSED DISCOVERIES PHYSICS When evidence comes to light that questions cherished theories, the usual practice of the scientific establishment is to reject it, not publish it, and denigrate it along with its discoverer. Part 1 of 2 Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous—especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally—by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. — Brian Martin, "Stamping Out Dissent"! cience is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity, open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This "new inquisition", as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson,’ consists not of cardinals and popes but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "sceptics", and last but not least of cor- porations and governments that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original Inquisition was. The scientists on the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published and which is not, the scientists at the patent offices who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund and not to fund, either truly believe they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature or they pur- posely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals, institutions or economic interests. Research which indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed or completely mistaken will be rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence. In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that after careful verification and theoretical anal re found to be inconsistent with a theory, then that theory has to go—no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, or how pres- tigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it. But in current mainstream science, the opposite occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first ignored, then ridiculed; and if that fails, its author is attacked. Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's scientific world, the cards are just stacked too heavily against true scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake, too many vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and reason. Referring to the fin de siécle "end of science" mentality and the scientific revolutions following it, Robert G. Jahn writes in "20th and 21st Century Science": "As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological and psychological anomalies...most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes by Rochus Boerner © December 2003 Email: rochus.boerner@asu.edu Website: http://www.suppressedscience.net/ by Rochus Boerner © December 2003 NEXUS + 49 Email: rochus.boerner@asu.edu FEBRUARY — MARCH 2004 www.nexusmagazine.com