They Argue that Many > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

I can actually see the thinking behind this e https://jerkplanet.org/ book. Stan Friedman's speciality is debunking the debunkers. His lectures and his books take sloppy negativism to process, and turn many armchair sceptics into a laughing inventory. "Science Was Wrong" takes that general thrust a step additional.

Throughout the historical past of science there have been 'impossibilists' who have denounced the most recent discovery or technical innovation as rubbish, usually as a knee-jerk reaction. After all, scepticism is part of the philosophy of science - new concepts are scrutinised by friends rigorously, and reproducible methodologies are essential to good science. This book has no drawback with that. The issue is the extra human aspect to peer overview. Egos, vested pursuits, politics, moral and religious objections, and evasion of accountability are all key elements to understanding why science can go mistaken.

The authors describe in detail many nicely-documented events in historical past when outstanding scientific work has been shot down from the sidelines by individuals who actually should have recognized better. They argue that many, many lives have been lost as a result.

For example, the invention of the jet engine, which was fist constructed in the city I dwell in (Gloucester, England), might need helped Britain see off the Nazis earlier on throughout the second world struggle if Frank Whittle's invention had only been taken seriously (pp22-7). Similarly, Goddard's early work in rocketry was debunked publicly by the new York Times, which held off 49 years before apologising (p30). The inventor died unheralded, his work eclipsed by the German rocket scientists delivered to America after the warfare. Inventors usually need quite a lot of tenacity, in addition to vision, to beat the scepticism and ridicule that may be piled upon them from all sorts of directions.

The authors argue that "technological progress comes from doing things in another way in an unpredictable method" (p40). This notion seems to be anathema to many scientists whose thinking is often extra linear and rigidly structured. Often the training of pure scientists sceptical of technological innovation is just inappropriate - they aren't uncovered sufficiently to the world of navy research, and their experience beyond the narrow confines of their very own speciality is insufficient to the duty of judging the merits of the case. More typically, but not at all times, debunkers are merely lazy:

"It's actually not scientific to do one's analysis by proclamation reasonably than investigation." (p40)

There are some surprises in the long listing of victims of bogus scepticism. Immanuel Velikovsky might have had some unusual concepts in regards to the origins of the planet Venus, but he was right about its floor temperature, as properly as the emission of radio waves from Jupiter (p45) A more trendy example is the ridicule heaped upon cold fusion. The authors argue convincingly that results from new research, carried out largely away from the general public's gaze, is showing nice promise (Ch5). A breakthrough would have far-reaching penalties for the complete vitality sector. Which, in itself, could also be the issue.

Essentially the most powerful writing in the guide was within the section dedicated to debunked medical breakthroughs. I found the part about Edward Jenner's conquest of Smallpox glorious (he was one other local boy from around here, and the cartoon above features some high quality examples of Gloucestershire folks: I believe I recognise just a few! As an aside to the authors, the Isle of Purbeck, the place Jenner once lived for a while, will not be really an island (p102). It's a district of Dorset the place, coincidentally, I often take my household on holiday).

Another good chapter mentioned the intransigence and arrogance of the medical establishment as early theories of bacterial infections emerged. That medical doctors often don't wash their arms will got here as no shock to many people in the health sector, even now.

The writing turns into quite political in locations, especially when describing the American interest in Eugenics in the first half of the 20th century. I've seen one Amazon assessment which did not like the authors' stance on this - a comment which I discover scary, frankly. The American, and other Western nations', flirtation with such authoritarian ideologies was actually a source of disgrace, however at least America drew back from the brink. The terrifying and tragic penalties of a authorities doctrine of Eugenics in Nazi Germany were plain for all to see. Although derived from Darwinism in a warped type of approach, Eugenics itself was not a scientifically valid concept in any respect.

The chapters highlighting company negligence and industrial pollution were also highly effective, and disturbing. Controversy rages in the chapters on Global Warming, and the environmental issues about toxic methyl mercury pollution from chemical industries and coal-fired power stations. An inconsistency within the e book emerges here when the authors contemplate what, if something, to do in regards to the vitality sector's addiction to cheap coal (compare p150 and p158).

The last section of the guide appears to be like on the scientific establishment's negativity in direction of fringe analysis areas, corresponding to psi phenomena and UFOs. Having just learn concerning the historical context of grossly unfair - and in the end incorrect - scepticism, one can respect what number of trendy sceptics are falling into the same traps:

"Today's professional "skeptics" typically adhere to an virtually theistic belief in "science", marked by cynicism and the manipulation of knowledge to fit their personal beliefs. Many plead for scientific scrutiny but are often, in reality, scientifically naive writers. Mainstream scientists, the media, and the general public are sometimes deceived by the skeptics' misinformation." (p167)

These are strong claims certainly, but the authors do an excellent job of substantiating them. Regrettably, a lot of the fabric on this section is predicated upon work previously printed by the identical writers, and it appears like a re-packaging of their materials. But for a lot of not already acquainted with the scientific proof for psychic phenomena, UFOs and alien abductions there is far right here to ponder upon.