NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM REALITY.

We are taught to visualize the scientist as a cheerful fellow clad in white smock, working in a spotless lab, and asking the insightful question that will eventually reach us at the super-market in the form of improved vitamins, new kinds of digital-recorders, and labor-saving devices. On reaching the end of his experiment, which has featured a set of daring questions that he is forcing Mother Nature to surrender, our scientist publishes his results.His peers give serious critical attention to his theory and check his lab results and interpretation, and science moves another step forward into the unknown.
Eventually, we are told, the results of he research, combined with many other reports, are digested by intellects of the highest order and the paradigm of scientific explanation moves steadily forward reducing the number of secrets that Mother Nature has left. Finally, popular science writers – Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, Jared Diamond, Robert Ardrey, and Jacob Bronowski – and others take this mass of technical scientific wisdom and distill it for us poor ignorant lay people so we can understand in general terms the great wisdom that science has created…

YES “CREATED” ?

The actual situation is much different, Academics, and they include everyone we think of as a scientists except people who work in commercial labs, are incredibly timid people. Many of them are intent primarily on maintaining their status within their universities and profession and consequently they resemble nothing so much as servants who are eager to please their masters, the master in this case being the vaguely defined academic profession. Scholars, and again I include scientists, are generally specialists in their field and are often wholly ignorant of developments outside their field. Thus, a person can become an international expert on butterflies and not know a single thing about frogs other then that they are disappearing – a fact more often picked up in the sunday newspaper science section then from reading a scientific journal. Scientist and scholars are notoriously obedient to the consensus opinions of the scholars of their profession, which usually means they pay homage to the opinions of scholars and scientists who occupy the prestige chairs at the Ivy Leagues and large research universities or even dead personalities of the past.
Scientists do work hard in maintaining themselves within their niche in their respective disciplines. This task is accomplished by publishing articles in the journals of their profession.A glance at the index of any journal will reveal that the articles are written for the express purpose generating mystique and appear to be carefully edited to eliminate any possibility of a clear thought. Editors of journals and editorial boards are notoriously conservative and reject anything that would resemble a breath of fresh air.

Any idea that appears to challenge orthodoxy and is publish is usually accompanied by copious responses from the names in the profession who are given the opportunity to quash and heretical conclusion that the article might suggest. Many subjects, no matter how interesting are simply prohibited because they call in to question long standing beliefs. Prestigious personalities can determine what is published and what is not. Journals do not reflect science or human knowledge; they represent the subjects that are not prohibited in polite discussion by a few established personalities in the larger intellectual world.
We often read newspaper accounts of new scientific theories. Too offend we have been trained to believe that the new discoveries are proven fact rather then speculative supposition within a field that is already dominated by orthodox doctrines. Quite frequently the newspaper account will contain the phrases “MOST SCIENTISTS AGREE,” implying to the lay person that hundreds of scientists have sincerely and prayerfully considered the issue, reached a consensus, and believe that the theory is reliable.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM REALITY.

In all probability a handful of people have read or heard of the article and, because it is written by a “responsible scholar” have feared to criticizes it. But who is the responsible scholar responsible to who? Not to the public, not to science, or history, or anthropology, but to a small group of similarly situated people who will make recommendations on behalf of his or her scholarship, award the prizes which each discipline holds dear, and write letters advocating his or her advancement. Unless a “scientist” is speaking specifically about his or her field. the chances are great that he or she does not know any more about the subject then your average well-read layperson.

Since it is possible for a prestigious personality to dominate a field populated with fearful little people trying to protect their status, some areas of “science” have not progressed in decades and some scientific doctrines actually have no roots except their traditional place in the intellectual structure of the discipline. For more then a century scientists have labeled unknown animal behavior as “instinct” which simply indicated that they did not know the processes of response. and instinct was passed off as a responsible scientific answer to an important question.

“EVOLUTION” IS USED TO COVER UP A MULTITUDE OF ACADEMIC SINS!

Now this is just one aspect of the civilized world, can we even begin to fathom the sins of all the other institutions?

Advertisements