>> 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.
Just playing with words... I should have said: "...usually done by scientists, which are /usually/ human beings" I regret that. And "objective" is a horrible word. And horrible sounds, you know, that way, at least in english.
