>From the references Alain posted earlier in the thread, it looks like conformity trumps everything. It must be in our genes - dissidents are probably at a Darwinian disadvantage. Violating the pecking order is a career-ender, for sure.
The case of Stanley Ovshinsky, inventor of amorphous semiconductors is instructive - "In 1960, he and his beloved second wife, Iris, scraped together some savings and started a business called Energy Conversion Devices. Mr. Ovshinsky soon created a stir by asserting that everything science knew about semiconductors was wrong. The scientific establishment ignored him, or wrote him off with scathing contempt. Finally, a renowned physicist at MIT tested his theory. Stunned, the physicist proclaimed that Mr. Ovshinsky was right." http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2012/10/26/How-Stan-Ovshinsky-left-the-world-a-better-place.html - fortunately someone actually tested his theory. It is really discouraging how many science writers quickly joined the anti-LENR/CF feeding frenzy by essentially only dutifully parroting the establishment line. BTW, regurgitating the establishment party-line seems to be the exclusive modus operandi of political journalists now, so maybe physics is not so different. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM, <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> wrote: > > (3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents >> university experimentation. >> > > I am not an academic, so I can only discuss what I observe from the > outside. But I suspect the pressure on academics is intense not to do > things that will pigeonhole them as eccentrics or mavericks. It is not > difficult to imagine that for all but the brightest the incentives for > avoiding these labels include the possibility of getting tenure at a > second- or first-tier institution. Even in cases of scientists whose > previous work has been acknowledged as groundbreaking, it is all too easy > for them to fall from grace later on -- Brian Josephson and David Bohm > come > to mind. Both now probably generate smirks among other scientists. One > sees from time to time the recurring theme of the formidable scientist who > goes on to lose his grasp of reality. This seems to be something that is > expected of a certain percentage of academics, and therefore a trap for > the > scientist to be especially wary of. Reputation is everything. > > If Peter Hagelstein was accurately quoted in saying that the mainstream > scientific community is a close-minded mafia, I can see why he would think > this. None of this is to say that scientists aren't doing some amazing > work; only that the criteria used by many for assessing new developments > seem to be off. > > Eric >
