oriel36 wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:59�am, Benj wrote:


The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of
"pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up.
Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired.
You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a
woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks
often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence.


I don't know why everyone is surprised,it is not a new development and
is a natural part of the empirical defences ,the old commie manifestos
were full of this breathless stuff and no wonder Americans intutively
hate the pseudo-pomp of empiricists,apart from the last approach to an
objector,the following excerpt from the 1930's just about covers it
all -

"When his allegiance is attacked, the psychopolitical operative should
explain his connection with Vienna on the grounds that Vienna is the
place of study for all important matters of the mind.

More importantly, he should rule into scorn, by reason of his
authority, the sanity of the person attacking him, and if the
psychopolitical archives of the country are adequate many defamatory
data can be unearthed and presented as a rebuttal.

Should anyone attempt to expose psychotherapy as a psychopolitical
activity, the best defense is calling into question the sanity of the
attacker. The next best defense is authority. The next best defense is
a validation of psychiatric practices in terms of long and impressive
figures. The next best defense is the actual removal of the attacker
by giving him, or them, treatment sufficient to bring about a period
of insanity for the duration of the trial. This, more than anything
else, would discredit them, but it is dangerous to practice this, in
the extreme." Chapter X

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7....html#anchor10

Hail Xenu! Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was really bad at writing this sort of
propaganda; it's so over-the-top and so focused on demonstrating how
evil psychiatrists are that even a complete idiot can tell he wrote it
himself. By the way, he didn't write it in the 1930's; I'd have to
look up the exact date, but Hubbard's title references "brainwashing,"
which means it can be no earlier than the Korean War.

--
Jim E. Black

On Jun 18, 8:59*pm, Benj wrote:
I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
promoting the dogma of establishment science. *This is a subject near
and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
time.

Although this film is on the subject of publishing papers on
"intelligent design" and the attacks upon one career that occur if
such transgressions against establishment dogma are even suggested let
alone advocated, the same actions can be equally seen if one chooses
to discuss a whole host of "anti-establishment" topics. I leave it as
an exercise for the interested student to make a list of topics upon
which any attempt to publish credible research will be a fast track to
the unemployment line.

The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of
"pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up.
Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired.
You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a
woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks
often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence.

So what is going on? I'll tell you. The problem, dear reader, is YOU!
You are simply too smart and too perceptive to be allowed free reign
in a world ruled by mass politics. You can too easily see through the
myriad political scams designed to keep those who rule, in power and
rich! Hence, a way had to be found to control you and keep you in
line! And what is that way? It's the "university" system that has been
developed along with "peer review" and government and other
"controlled" funding of research that makes sure that certain topics
and certain ideas are never given free and open discussion. *You ALL
know this is true. But most of you can't say a thing though because
unlike me, you still have a career in science that can be lost.

This documentary is especially interesting to me in that it pulls very
few punches. It makes the connection between communist doctrine and
establishment dogma. It makes the connection, for example between
Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the
American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed
its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. It points
out the connection between atheism (the state religion of leftist
regimes) and Darwinism. And best of all it shows the draconian
punishment awaiting any research who steps even a little bit out of
line! *Yes, Virginia they WILL "make an example of you" if you drift
even a little bit into a "forbidden zone"!

All of you out there, listen to me. If you are just the least bit
interested in REAL science, this documentary is required viewing. It
should soon be out on DVD so go steal a copy from a friend or if you
must, rent it from Blockbuster. Your first lesson in science boys and
girls is that science is NOT the pure exercise of intellect and free
inquiry you thought it was. It is about making sure that aspects of
knowledge that threaten the power of the elite stay tightly
"controlled". There is POLITICS right down at *the core of modern
science and sorry to say, politics operates best with lies. And it's
high time you all learned how this politics works whether you choose
to join in the lies or work to eliminate them.

Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
Stein! *:-) ]

Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! *I say this
documentary is one good step in the right direction.


What's this "our" ****, Kimosabe?

"Benj" wrote in message
...
I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
promoting the dogma of establishment science.

snip brilliant exposition

Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
Stein! :-) ]

Benj... You left out the "other" Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Bible
Thumping Evangelist -- Rush Limbaugh. He was born and raised in the Jewish
Faith.

May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"

Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.

The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes*
H and H *causes* E,

F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.

Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.

For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!

Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r -- zero.

Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)

I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
...
Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion
of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list
several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when
they were shown to be defective.

Yes. And that is the point. HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE if these
dogmatic "laws" had not been jammed down the throats of the "thinking
classes?" It took people of intelligence, personal courage and incredibly
high character to FINALLY shake these defective concepts off of the tree of
dogma.

Bill

On Jun 19, 8:46*pm, Igor wrote:
On Jun 18, 8:59*pm, Benj wrote:

Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! *I say this
documentary is one good step in the right direction.

What's this "our" ****, Kimosabe?

What you mean "Kimosabe", white man? I'm the one here with the red
man genes! :-)

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
...
Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion
of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list
several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when
they were shown to be defective.

Yes. And that is the point. HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE if
these dogmatic "laws" had not been jammed down the throats of the
"thinking classes?" It took people of intelligence, personal courage
and incredibly high character to FINALLY shake these defective
concepts off of the tree of dogma.

Hmm, I'm not sure that these things were ever a significant pacing item.
As for "how much farther along might mankind be?" Well, if you subscribe
to the notion that there would have been rapid technological
development, how about...... closer to extinction!

Phil H

"Benj" wrote in message
...
I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near
and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
time.
"The tiny single celled photomunglingmiopticaliosis (not his real name) does
this and that in order to attract a potential mate. He does this because he
worries endlessly that he may not pass on his genes, and therefore will have
no one to inherit his estate, the worlds oceans. He ponders the
implications endlessly as his tiny non existent brain hasn't the ability to
develop worthless distractions that might otherwise give him some respite."
Most evolutionary biology reads as though many biologists are in fact
reincarnated "photomunglingmiopticaliosis", or know someone who is. How
else is it that they "know" the minds and motives of these things? And,
what is truly bizarre is that having elucidated us all on the inner
thoughts, motives and desires of single celled animals, things that are
somewhat less sophisticated than jellyfish, they lambaste those who don't
accept that they have such extraordinary extrasensory zoopsychiatric
abilities.
Some time ago it was realized that if evolutionary biology did not
arbitrarily ascribe motive people would continue to ask "why?" and that was
going to be a real problem. Someone in the discipline evidently had read
the story of the emperor's new clothes and recognized a means to an end. If
only there had been an agent of the emperor's magic tailors in the crowd,
they could have lambasted the child immediately and the crowd would follow.
There is science and there is that which pretends to be.
Vince

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"

Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.

The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes*
H and H *causes* E,

Common enough as a just-so story in introductory textbooks. A natural
interpretation of Faraday's experiments, yes?

Hardly near-universal, as it isn't hard to find books (on
electromagnetics) where such claims are not made. Historically, it's been
clear ever since Lorenz's 1867 paper. Also clear in any modern formulation
of electromagnetics as a 4D relativistic field theory (given the Lorenz
gauge, what else would one expect?).

Would publishing (or attempting to) a paper opposing this interpetation
result in attack on one's scientific career?

F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.

Such as? A "law" doesn't need to be universally applicable. For example,
consider Snell's law: can you use Snell's law when one of the media cannot
be characterised by a refractive index?

Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.

For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!

???

Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r -- zero.

One of the well-know deep problems in classical and quantum
electrodynamics. However, as far as we can tell, Coulomb's law
_works_. The real problem is the implications of this, such as infinite
self-energy, and infinite inertia of point charges.

Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)

Given that statistical mechanics is widely taught to undergrads, making
this point, is this really dogma?

I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.

Do keep in mind that the original post was equating resistance from within
"establishment science" to the enforced introduction of teaching of
religious dogma in science classrooms with a supposed enforcement of
establishment dogma in science. How is defensive anti-dogmatism meant to
be the same as enforcement of dogma?

Would trying to publish on _any_ of the topics you listed endanger a
scientific career?

The research-end of science is full of dispute and controversy. Many of
the participants in disputes over who is correct are wrong (usually at
least somebody must be, and sometimes everybody is wrong).

The textbook-end of science is rather ossified, and simplified severely at
the introductory level. Witness the usual pattern of teaching classical
mechanics as True, to be followed later by teaching special relativity as
True ("What we have taught you before is wrong!" - an attitude which can
disturb students), when neither is a complete (or we might say, "correct
in a strict sense") theory. OTOH, both are very good theories when applied
appropriately. Given that you can hardly start out by teaching general
relativity (to get the GR - SR - classical mechanics progression) or
quantum field theory (to get a QFT - non-relativistic quantum mechanics
- classical mechanics progression), what can one do? Well, the
transition from CM - SR should emphasise just how little change is
required in the core of CM, and certainly shouldn't be along the lines of
"what we taught you before is wrong". Especially because most of what had
been taught before is _not_ wrong.

Textbooks are a teaching tool, not expositions on current scientific
opinion. That said, they can have lasting influence on students.
In particular, scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, and the
presentation of textbook content as absolute fact is in opposition to
this, encouraging scientism or confusion when scientific dispute is
encountered; not good preparation for modern life. Thus the movements to
include understanding/history/nature/philosophy of science in science
education in the schools.

Given that significant, and politically influential, elements of the
"establishment" are actively working towards education of the public
including the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, where is the
dogmatism of the establishment?

Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid questioning
are _not_ members of the scientific establishment.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
...
Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion
of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list
several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when
they were shown to be defective.

Yes. And that is the point. HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE if
these dogmatic "laws" had not been jammed down the throats of the
"thinking classes?" It took people of intelligence, personal courage and
incredibly high character to FINALLY shake these defective concepts off
of the tree of dogma.

Hmm, I'm not sure that these things were ever a significant pacing item.
As for "how much farther along might mankind be?" Well, if you subscribe
to the notion that there would have been rapid technological development,
how about...... closer to extinction!

I'm afraid I do not share your nihilistic viewpoint. Free men, through free
enterprise and free expression have accomplished more FOR humanity in the
last century than was accomplished by all the dogma-restricted centuries
after the Roman Empire collapsed.

I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human
accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full.

Bill

Phil H

Bill Miller wrote:
I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human
accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full.

I feel most sorry for those that do not know it would have
to be 20% empty and 80% full simulataneously.

It can not be one or the other alone.
It has to be both.



--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman