• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

I can actually see the pondering behind this e https://jerkplanet.org/ book. Stan Friedman's speciality is debunking the debunkers. His lectures and his books take sloppy negativism to process, and turn many armchair sceptics right into a laughing inventory. "Science Was Wrong" takes that general thrust a step additional.

Throughout the history of science there have been 'impossibilists' who've denounced the newest discovery or technical innovation as rubbish, usually as a knee-jerk reaction. Of course, scepticism is part of the philosophy of science - new concepts are scrutinised by friends rigorously, and reproducible methodologies are important to good science. This book has no downside with that. The issue is the extra human ingredient to peer evaluate. Egos, vested interests, politics, moral and religious objections, and evasion of accountability are all key components to understanding why science can go fallacious.

The authors describe in detail many nicely-documented occasions in historical past when excellent scientific work has been shot down from the sidelines by people who really should have recognized higher. They argue that many, many lives have been lost because of this.

For example, the invention of the jet engine, which was fist constructed in the city I stay in (Gloucester, England), might have helped Britain see off the Nazis earlier on during the second world conflict if Frank Whittle's invention had solely been taken seriously (pp22-7). Similarly, Goddard's early work in rocketry was debunked publicly by the brand new York Times, which held off 49 years earlier than apologising (p30). The inventor died unheralded, his work eclipsed by the German rocket scientists delivered to America after the battle. Inventors often want an excessive amount of tenacity, in addition to imaginative and prescient, to overcome the scepticism and ridicule that may be piled upon them from all kinds of directions.

The authors argue that "technological progress comes from doing things in another way in an unpredictable way" (p40). This notion seems to be anathema to many scientists whose considering is commonly extra linear and rigidly structured. Often the coaching of pure scientists sceptical of technological innovation is just inappropriate - they aren't exposed sufficiently to the world of army analysis, and their experience past the slender confines of their very own speciality is insufficient to the duty of judging the deserves of the case. More typically, however not always, debunkers are merely lazy:

"It's definitely not scientific to do one's analysis by proclamation somewhat than investigation." (p40)

There are some surprises in the long listing of victims of bogus scepticism. Immanuel Velikovsky could have had some unusual ideas concerning the origins of the planet Venus, however he was proper about its surface temperature, as well as the emission of radio waves from Jupiter (p45) A extra modern instance is the ridicule heaped upon chilly fusion. The authors argue convincingly that results from new research, performed largely away from the general public's gaze, is showing nice promise (Ch5). A breakthrough would have far-reaching consequences for the entire vitality sector. Which, in itself, could also be the problem.

Probably the most powerful writing within the guide was within the part dedicated to debunked medical breakthroughs. I discovered the section about Edward Jenner's conquest of Smallpox wonderful (he was another native boy from around right here, and the cartoon above options some tremendous examples of Gloucestershire folks: I feel I recognise a couple of! As an aside to the authors, the Isle of Purbeck, the place Jenner as soon as lived for some time, is not actually an island (p102). It's a district of Dorset the place, coincidentally, I typically take my household on holiday).

Another good chapter mentioned the intransigence and arrogance of the medical institution as early theories of bacterial infections emerged. That medical doctors typically don't wash their hands will came as no surprise to many of us in the health sector, even now.

The writing turns into fairly political in places, particularly when describing the American curiosity in Eugenics in the first half of the 20th century. I've seen one Amazon assessment which didn't just like the authors' stance on this - a comment which I discover scary, frankly. The American, and different Western nations', flirtation with such authoritarian ideologies was certainly a supply of shame, but at least America drew back from the brink. The terrifying and tragic penalties of a authorities doctrine of Eugenics in Nazi Germany were plain for all to see. Although derived from Darwinism in a warped form of way, Eugenics itself was not a scientifically legitimate idea in any respect.

The chapters highlighting company negligence and industrial pollution had been additionally powerful, and disturbing. Controversy rages within the chapters on Global Warming, and the environmental concerns about toxic methyl mercury pollution from chemical industries and coal-fired power stations. An inconsistency in the ebook emerges here when the authors contemplate what, if something, to do in regards to the energy sector's addiction to low-cost coal (examine p150 and p158).

The final section of the guide appears to be like at the scientific establishment's negativity in the direction of fringe research areas, reminiscent of psi phenomena and UFOs. Having simply learn about the historical context of grossly unfair - and ultimately fallacious - scepticism, one can recognize how many fashionable sceptics are falling into the same traps:

"Today's professional "skeptics" often adhere to an nearly theistic belief in "science", marked by cynicism and the manipulation of information to fit their personal beliefs. Many plead for scientific scrutiny however are sometimes, in actuality, scientifically naive writers. Mainstream scientists, the media, and most people are often deceived by the skeptics' misinformation." (p167)

These are robust claims indeed, however the authors do an excellent job of substantiating them. Regrettably, a lot of the fabric in this section is predicated upon work beforehand published by the identical writers, and it seems like a re-packaging of their materials. But for many not already acquainted with the scientific evidence for psychic phenomena, UFOs and alien abductions there is far here to ponder upon.