> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> If nothing else, this shoots down the old canard (often claimed by >> those trying to argue that SR is just a big conspiracy) that any >> scientist who actually measured a particle going faster than light >> would suppress the result to avoid going against "the establishment". > > This is never a problem. The scientific establishment does not care one > way or the other about whether a result is in line with theory, or > opposed to it, or so far-out it has no bearing on any theory. In the > last category we have multi-universe theories and string theory. > > The scientific establishment cares about only two things: money, and > power. You can predict that if a finding will bring money or power to a > researcher, he will approve of it, but if he fears it will cost him > money or power, he will oppose it. He will come up with theoretical > justification for his position post-hoc. If you offer him a grant, he > will instantly switch sides and believe the opposite of what he > previously believed, as T. Passell discovered in 1989 and 1990 with > regard to cold fusion. > > If you discover a potent new source of energy you will meet great > resistance because other groups are already funded to search for energy > sources. It makes no difference whether your new source is an > incremental improvement or cold fusion. The only thing that matters is > whether it is likely to take away other people's funding, or corporate > profits. An incremental improvement to solar cells is no particular > threat because there are dozens of them every year. A completely > revolutionary solar cell with the potential to put the coal industry out > of business would be opposed by all other solar and wind researchers and > by the coal and fission industry. When I say "oppose" I mean they would > try to destroy your life. > > When there is no existing competition, an innovation or breakthrough > will either be ignored or welcomed. It will probably not be opposed. > X-rays were welcomed in 1895 because there was no means to look inside > solid objects. But, in the 1990s when people tried to develop improved > methods such as cat scans and NMR, these projects ran into tremendous > opposition because they threatened the market share of existing > corporations, and the knowledge base of academic experts. > > S. Szpak pointed out the ruling factor in academic science: scientists > believe whatever you pay them to believe. He was being cynical, but it > is true.
Well said. Science, and particularly, "establishment science", i.e. science as an established discipline, is neither neutral nor objective, but just another human affair. Because it's usually done by scientists, which are human beings, which have therefore a saucer full of human traits.
