Re: The scientific method of investigation

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:51:50 +0000 (UTC), Ed Conrad
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:21:19 +0000 (UTC), catshark
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>         THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
>>     (When the Truth Would Make Duck Soup of Its Theory)
><
>"Strange concretion"
>:>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
>>
>"Another rock."
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
>>
>"Portion of a petrified soup bowl"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
><
>"Two branches, one petrified"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
>>
>"Tree roost"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
>>
>"Petrified balloon, not entirely deflated"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
>>
>"Another odd concretion"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG>
>>
>"Petrified bowling ball embedded in a rock"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
>>
>"Pair of twigs, covered with coal dust"
>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
>>
>Or, to answer your question another way, The Scientific Method
>of Investigation -- at least in the field of physical anthropology --
>is an outright sham that has long championed its self-proclaimed
>omniscience, its incredible arrogance and an ample supply
>of deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
>>
>Let Truth be damned.
>>
>Ed Conrad
>> http://www.edconrad.com
>>
>Man as Old as Coal
>>
Any mention of "The Scientific Method of Investigation" cannot
possibly fail to recount the incredible deceit, deception. collusion
and conspiracy by the Scientific establishment when greeted
with the shocking truth revealed by Dr. Immanuel Velikvosky
in his masterful book, "Worlds in Collision," published more
than a half-century ago.
These are taken from two of my posts to talk.origins in 1997.
<
<
> ==================================================
>
>  THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR." (laying pseudoscience bare)"
<
In 1963, the editors of American Behavioral Scientist magazine
were convinced of the merits of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's science
-- contained in "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval,"
published in the early 1950s -- and were aware of the mushroom
cloud of denial that had been generated from within the scientific
community.
>
The editors considered these events to be of major importance
to the history of science.
>
Therefore, they displayed tremendous courage by devoting their
September 1963 issue to defending Velikovsky.
<
It contained three papers dealing with the Velikovsky controversy --
by Ralph Juergens, Livio Stecchini and publisher Alfred de Grazia, 
as well as a paper submitted by Velikovsky himself.
<
Three years later -- in 1966 -- this edition of American Behavioral
Scientist wound up as a hard-cover book entitled "The Velikovsky
Affair: The Warfare of Science and Scientism," edited by de Grazia
and published by University Books Inc., New Hyde Park, N.Y.
< 
>                              ~~~~
>
>              "THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR"
>                             Foreward
>                    (by Alfred de Grazia)
>
In 1950, a book called Worlds in Collision, by Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky, gave rise to a controversy in scientific and intellectual
circles about scientific theories and the sociology of science.
>
Dr. Velikovsky's historical and cosmological concepts, bolstered by
his acknowledged scholarship, constituted a formidable assault on
certain established theories of astronomy, geology and historical
biology, and on the heroes of those sciences.
<
Newton, himself, and Darwin were being challenged, and indeed
the general orthodoxy of an ordered universe.
<
The substance of Velikovsky's ideas is briefly presented in the first
chapter of this book.
<
What must be called the scientific establishment rose in arms, not
only against th new Velikovsky theories but against the man himself.
Efforts were made to block dissemination of Dr. Velikovsky's ideas,
and even to punish supporters of his investigations.
<
>Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses, the popular press
> were approached and threatened; social pressures and professional
> sanctions were invoked to control public opinion.
<
There is no doubt that in a totalitarian society, not only would Dr.
Velikovsky's reputation have been at stake, but also his right to
pursue his inquiry, and perhaps his own personal safety.
<
As it was, the "establishment" succeeded in building a wall of
unfavorable sentiment around him: to thousands of scholars
the name of Velikovsky bears the taint of fantasy, science-fiction
and publicity.
<
He could not be suppressed entirely. In the next few years
he published three more books. He carried on a large
correspondence. And he was helped by friends and by a large
general public composed of persons outside of the establishments
of science.
<
The probings of spacecraft tended to confirm -- never to disprove --
his arguments.
<
> Eventually, the venomous aspects of the controversy,
> the efforts at suppression, the campaign of vilification
> loomed almost as large, in their consequences to science,
> as the original issue.
<
Social scientists, who had been generally aware of Dr. Velikovsky's
work, now found themselves in the thick of the conflict.
The involvement of the social and behavioral sciences in the
scientific theories of Velikovsky was higher than had been earlier
appreciated.
<
The social sciences are the basis of Velikvsky's work: despite
his proficiency in the natural sciences, it is by the use of the
methodology of social science that Velikovsky launched his challenge
to accepted cosmological theories.
<
No one pretends that this method is adequate. New forms of
interdisciplinary research are needed to wed, for example, the study
of myth with the study of meteorities.
<
Nor does one have to agree that Velikovsky is the greatest technician
of mythology, even while granting his great conceptual and
synthesizing powers.
<
Whatever the scientific substance, the controversy inself could not
be avoided or dismissed by behavioral science.
<
>The problem of sicence is one of the agitating problems
> of the twentieth century. The issues are clear: Who determines
> scientific truth: Who are its high priests, and what is their
> warrant? How do they establish their canons? What effects
> do they have on the freedom of inquiry, and on public interest?
<
In the end, some judgment must be passed upon the behavior of the
scientific world and, if adverse, some remedies must be proposed . . .
<
It is our hope that the publication of these papers in the present
volume (a revised and enlarged version) will make it less easy for
Velikovsky's new work to be suppressed, or lightly dismissed.
<
We hope, too, that they will help scientists and interested laymen
everywhere to rehearse the problems and to reform the errors
of the vast enterprise of science.
<
> ===========================================
<
In 1966, Alfred de Grazia, publisher of American Behavioral Scientist 
magazine, wrote the following in a chapter entitled, "Scientific
Reception," in the book, "The Velikovsky Affair: The Warfare
of Science and Scientism."
<
> ==========================================
<
>     The Question of "SCIENTIFIC RECEPTION" 
<
> ==========================================                  
<
Stated de Grazia:
<
It  would be well to inquire whether existing institutions have
an inherent capacity for trying and sanctioning unprofessional
practices among professionals.
<
Two types of problems occur: those of ethics and those of
non-rationality.
<
Most contemporary scientists, and the public, perhaps, believe
that scientific freedom is achieved when outside lay authorities
are forbidden to rule on questions of functional ethics and
scientific truth.
<
Institutions are scorned. Legislative investigations are hateful.
The considerable powers of lawyers and medical practioners
for self-government are regarded as inappropriate to scientific
affairs.
<
Is there no recourse for the scientist who has been damaged
by the means detailed in these papers?
>
Perhaps Harvard Unviersity has within its authority the right to
inquire into the scientific behavior of its faculty. Its officers
might make a determination "on the merits" that one or more
 members of the faculty were so irrelevant and destructive in their
scientific work as to violate plain standards of scientific
competence.
<
They might as a result take remedial action, as, for example,
to require apologies, re-tests, re-examinations, discussion in open
forums, suspension, reprimand, resignation, or dismissal.
<
Lacking any of these forms of action, can a university be said
 to be responsible to its own and to the greater community
 for the quality of the particular activities it performs in the name
of the community and of knowledge?
<
>                                   ~~~~~~~
<
De Grazia again:
<
If the public concern is present, what public machinery is to be
brought into play -- congressional investigations, a national science
board to hear and investigate complaints, a congress of scientific
associations with such a judicial branch?
<
Such questions warrant intensive study followed by new policies.
 It is this writer's belief that independent hearing and reporting
mechanisms should be invented for use by associations and
by joint scientific-public-governmental organs.
<
Legislative and executive machinery should be avoided as far
as possible, but quasi-judicial machinery encouraged. Scientists
have on the whole tender sensitivities. A mild exposure and
embarrasment usually have great corrective value for them.
<
Ed Conrad
> http://ww.edconrad.com
>
Man as Old as Coal>
>