Thanks for agreeing.
I also think there is conflict between what bureaucrats want and what 
experimenters want. 

Experimenters want to do an experiment and get new results and then have the 
theory changed.

But  bureaucrats want is to keep things the same and not change things; i.e. 
they don't want the theory to change, they want the existing theory to be dogma.
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadrant | 
HighBeam Research

|   |    |


|   |  
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadra...
 The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin; Penguin, 2007, $59.95. LORD KELVIN, 
in the late... | Article from Qu...  |   |



 Bureaucrats want dead science, but experimenters want living science that 
changes as new facts are discovered.
Well as for me: scientists ignore their history of how they got to where they 
are now. Einstein worked on unified field theory, so did a lot of other people 
and that history is ignored from what is taught to physics student, so they 
grow up ignorant.

    On Friday, 26 January 2018, 7:10, "" 
<> wrote:

 #yiv5996356374 #yiv5996356374 -- _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5996356374 
#yiv5996356374 p.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 
li.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5996356374 a:link, 
#yiv5996356374 span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 a:visited, #yiv5996356374 
.yiv5996356374MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5996356374 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374WordSection1 {}#yiv5996356374 
Roger-   I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding 
different thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses 
the term “science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the 
social entity  which excludes different thinking.     The following from 
Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of nuclear and 
condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:   “The current view 
within the scientific community is that these fields have things right, and if 
that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the problem is with 
those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a 
quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much clearer. There 
is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is reproducible in some 
labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there are many 
replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter physics 
and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for these 
anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect of the 
associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to 
break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more closely 
matched to experiment.”   From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the 
establishment’s “science community.”  The Corporate, University, Government 
Complex, driven by financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  
Institution.    Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this 
nightmare IMHO as Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government 
funding/research grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the 
production of real data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural 
laws or nature.   Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:   
“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”   I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing 
the saving grace afforded by the likes of Mills,Rossi and others around the 
world to exist and function on meager funding, producing real controlled excess 
heat via LENR without understanding the detailed science or fundamental natural 
laws.  The control/power hungry “science community” will eat crow in my 
optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).   Bob Cook                                   
                                     From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries   
>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 

 but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected 

 for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:


John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave".Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) 
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 

    On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell <> 
wrote:    A trusting soul over wrote that science does not 
exclude different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:    
Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking. 

With some example such as:

We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should. 

There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to historywe would not know about it. Because it is lost. The 
logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone who 
is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."   
 - Jed          


Reply via email to