It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The state of science.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:30 PM
Check out this link, it talks about the bad state that science has been in for at least the last 125 years. Scientists not getting reckognition, ridiculed, imprisoned etc... The Wright brothers for example, were ignored by the press for at least five years, in all that time people "knew" they were a hoax and that man powered flight was impossible.

Here are some more examples.

Semmelweis, the pioneer of sterile medical practices, died in an insane asylum. Those who discovered anesthesia died penniless. The pioneers of sterile surgical practices, Lister and Keen, were treated shabbily. Louis Pasteur may have marched microbiology, and hence medicine, off in the wrong direction, by plagiarizing Antoine Béchamp. Emil Grubbé was not exactly "welcomed" for discovering radium therapy. Rife, Naessens, Reich and many other pioneers of medicine have been subjected to vilification and endless legal and professional attacks. Those are standard examples of the fates of scientific pioneers. Nikola Tesla has been written out of the history books. That list can go on and on. A craving for power and control typifies the members of the American government, those who run the world's institutions, most corporate leaders, etc. The world of science is no different, especially as men dominate it. A pithy observation during the Gilded Age was that “pioneering don’t pay.”

With the rise of science came the Industrial Revolution, and science was an integral part of its progress. Consequently, science needed to be controlled by the capitalists, and it has been. Attacks on scientific pioneers by their “peers” is standard human behavior, no different with scientists than any other group of people. Also, certain scientific and technological breakthroughs can be very bad for business, upsetting the rackets. Therefore, true innovation is largely dead in many industries, such as transportation, energy, medicine, etc. The greater the concentration of power in the industry, the more scientific advances are stifled and crushed. Also, as an example, industrially-sponsored/influenced "scientists" such as Harold Hodge, Gerald Cox, Trendley Dean, David Ast, Edward Largent and others turned an industrial waste, fluoride, into a "medicine," while scientists such as Phyllis Mullenix had their careers destroyed for reporting data that contradicted the propaganda.

England's most distinguished electrical engineer, Sir William Siemens, who had tried solving the electrical lighting problem for ten years, greeted Edison's announcement with, "Such startling announcements should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress." Edison soon perfected his light and publicly demonstrated electrical lighting in Menlo Park, lighting the streets around his laboratory. The public came from miles away to see the night lit up by electrical lighting. Edison was demonstrating the "impossible" to the public. What was the reaction of science then?

Professor Henry Morton lived near Menlo Park, and could not be bothered to stretch his legs to go see for himself. Morton instead wrote that he protested "in behalf of true science." Morton wrote that Edison's experiments were "a conspicuous failure, trumpeted as a wonderful success. A fraud upon the public." Professor Du Moncel said, "One must have lost all recollection of American hoaxes to accept such claims. The Sorcerer of Menlo Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical science. Mr. Edison takes us backwards." Edwin Weston, an expert in arc lighting, said that Edison's claims were "so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines." While the public was strolling under the radiance of the electrical lighting in Menlo Park, Sir William Preece, who had studied under Faraday, and was the chief engineer of Britain's Post Office, addressed the Royal Society in London, where he read a paper under the day’s murky gaslights. Preece said that Edison's electric lamp was "a completely idiotic idea."

Einstein once observed that human stupidity is seemingly infinite. The danger is thinking that scientists possess less of it than the public at large, when sometimes they possess more.

Department of Energy scientists tried explaining away what their Geiger counters told them about Brown's Gas transmuting radioactive material during the 1990s. They had to perform mental summersaults and nearly gouge their eyes out to deny what their eyes and brains told them, but they accomplished it. Getting a diploma from a university does not confer intelligence or make somebody a true scientist. About 99% of those with engineering degrees have little creative talent. Mr. Mentor once told me that most engineers are plodders. They can be given some numbers to crunch or drawings to make, and they will dutifully perform their tasks, bringing back their results when finished. Not that the work may not be valuable, but there is often little creativity or mental horsepower brought to bear on such activities. Those mundane activities are similar to what Kuhn called “normal science.” The vast majority of educated people cannot think past their textbooks, whether it is in science, mathematics, history, politics, accounting, etc. Creative insight is what drives scientific and technical advances. Without that “right side” of the brain working, analysis and technical drudgery provide little insight, and for those mired in such quagmires, comprehending the possibility of flight or other textbook-challenging ideas is nearly impossible, as Planck observed.

The academic experience proves little, and negative learning often takes place. Some of the best inventors and engineers were either self-taught or were mediocre students. Einstein barely made it through his curriculum. Edison was self-taught, attending school for three months of his life.

For centuries, scientists attempted to explain what the auroras were. In 1896, Kristian Birkeland of Norway boldly struck out in the right direction in explaining the auroras when he theorized that electrons from the sun caused the auroras, being deflected to the poles by earth's magnetic field, and the resultant auroras were like magnetic storms. His bold theory was on the right track, but not embraced. Instead, he was fiercely attacked by his peers for his "crazy" theory, and died a broken man in 1917. His work was derided and suppressed for many years, the effort being led by an English physicist named Sydney Chapman. Eventually Hannes Alfvén challenged the auroric citadel that Chapman perched atop, revived Birkeland's theories, and Alfvén was stonewalled by

Lower down, it shows how the worldview of certain materialistic skeptics differ completely with the worldview of the greatest scientist.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:49 PM
Here is another webpage of this.

Note: the part of the 21st century is speculation of the author, Dean Radin.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 11:35 PM
And another one...

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 12:25 AM
What about all the scientists crazy ideas that were accepted without any ridicule?

  • Fermi and the neutrino
  • Michelson-Morley and the aether null result
  • Yang-Mills theory
  • Friedmann and the expanding universe solutions to the Einstein equations
  • Hubble and redshift
  • all the scientists working on Quantum Mechanics

Some of the world's best mathematicians and physicists followed an entire curriculum without problems: Riemann, Euler, Feynmann, Cartan, etc.

The article generalizes too much. There have been mistakes, but that was not the norm.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 12:39 AM
Not that it generalizes, I don't disagree with you. But there are a huge amount of instances that scientists were ridiculed and humiliated.

Why is there still hardly any mention of Tesla in the science and history books for example??

Also, this might seem crazy, but there might be an explanation in the same page... Don't know if I should believe it or not though...

A major reason the world knows about Einstein's theories of relativity is because they posed no immediate economic threat to powerful interests in 1905. If relativity posed an immediate threat to the Rockefeller Empire or the other robber baron industries, the world may have never heard of relativity, as it would have been suppressed from the outset.

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 01:19 AM
I believe that most cutting edge science is not given the attention it deserves - this has been consistant throughout history. I mean, most people thought the world was flat for a thousand years after the greeks (or was it the romans) knew it was round.

The thing with todays tech, is that the revolutionary stuff is VERY hard for most people to imagine, and also takes a LOT of time to research and develope to the point of being usefull to the average person. Add the fact that most investors are looking for quick results and even quicker profits.....

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 01:51 AM
I agree, i've heard and read of many scientific advancements that have been discredited or the patents bought for purely commercial reasons. some of these include:

-A tyre that doesnt lose its tread
-Various engines that can run on the following; water, coconut oil, alcohol, palm oil (theres more but cant remeber them all)
-of course all the 'green' enerfy ideas that the goverment refuses to invest in
-tesla's idea of giving affordable electricity to everyone on the planet.

The list goes on and on and on. Of course many of these have no support to show these inventions exsist, but the point remains there is so much knoweldge and technology lost, and the reason its ignored is purely commercial. Which in my opinion is greed, to sacrifice progress for money is putting the advancement of the race at risk.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 01:58 AM
Yup, here is the problem though - the best/most progresive government we as humans can come up with is the capitalistic democracy. It is this that spurs so many advancements and yet at the same time holds us back. If only it were so simple as to unite the human race, maybe we could develope faster.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:15 AM

-tesla's idea of giving affordable electricity to everyone on the planet.

From what I understand its a good thing that he didn't. Would you really feel comfortable plugging your appliances in the ground? Thats the invention you're refering too right? Cuz I know about tesla towers and I don't see how they could be used to transmit power safely.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:05 AM
I don't see why large corporations would try to silence scientific discoveries. It makes much more sense to promote new discoveries to be the first company to have them. I think you can't stop advances forever. Someday someone is going to rediscover it.

Governments spend a lot of money working on new energy sources. Do you have any idea how expensive ITER is? Most universities here have government-sponsored departments working on solar cells.

I do think more money should be spend on research, especially fundamental research. And there probably have been some mistakes in the past and maybe still right now, but that is no reason to condemn the entire scientific community.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:16 AM
We have to remembe that one of the major groups that science had to fight is religious groups. Through centuries has always been a battle between both. My daughter is in a science major and a very controvetial one, she knows that all odds are not in her favor.

But she says that is part of her desire to become a scientist.

She says that she probably will die alone, childless and a spisnter, but she is up to leave a mark in this world.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 08:41 AM

[edit on 2004-7-2 by Teknik]

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:10 AM
Amantine, I think you underestimate the greed of the big companies and especially the oil companies. It's safe to say that they will do anything possible to debunk, stop and destroy any new technologies that will take away their monopolies on energy. Anything that threatens profit for them.

Second of all the quote made by Max Planck sums it all: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." It's been shown that an immense amount of scientists have not been open to new discoveries that would have them revise the current accepted scientific theory. Scientists are humans, and just because they are scientists, doesn't mean that they can't be closed minded and dogmatic. And then there's the noisy skeptics like Randi or Sagan, who would do anything including fraud to prove their worldview and disprove any other paradigms. They get acceptance from the mainstream, and they are said to be an essential part of science and scientific inquiry. Nonsense... I personally have no good word for "skeptics" like those from csicop.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by amantine
I don't see why large corporations would try to silence scientific discoveries. It makes much more sense to promote new discoveries to be the first company to have them.

Some company, I don't recall which one perhaps GE, made a light blub that could last 20 years. Think about it; people would only have to buy lightbulds every twenty years and the companies would all go out of business.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Jonna
Some company, I don't recall which one perhaps GE, made a light blub that could last 20 years. Think about it; people would only have to buy lightbulds every twenty years and the companies would all go out of business.

Actually, no. You may still be buying short-life lightbulbs, but we buy the longlife ones that last 5+ years. But, you see, they can't go everywhere and there's a lot of lightbulb sizes that can't be made into longlife bulbs (Christmas tree lights, and decorative fixture lights.) They don't deal well with heat and can't be used in recessed lighting.

We might be lightbulb-rich here in the US, but the rest of the world isn't. There's still a huge market out there, and a market in many different types of bulbs. And they're not going away.

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:22 PM
...and about the sad state of science... sigh. Yeah, that's depressing.

What we need are more movies about the exciting and sexy world of science... cold fusion physics, superstring theory, and gosharootie don't forget us anthropologists!! When we show the kids that having a brain is more fun than having a basketball, we can raise science and education out of the mire.

(okay... so it's a ridiculous dream, but I can dream, right??? Sensuous middle-aged anthropologists have a right to dreams, too! (grin))

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:39 PM
Everyone hasa right to dream Byrd...
Anyway, another thing: Why is it that everytime the media covers some strange and/or extraordinary, the "skeptics" practically always get the last word? Even if what they say is hogwash?

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:49 PM
I feel that schools should teach a lot more mathematics. Nothing is as beautiful as a well constructed mathematical theory. The math that has to be used to explain physics makes it uninteresting to many people. If they just got that math in school, I think they would appreciate physics and mathematics a lot more. We don't even get ZFC set theory (or ZF if you don't like the axiom of choice) or topology in mathematics class (my school is for ages 12-18).

Oh, why am I interested in those areas of science people usually find boring, mathematics and physics?

posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Everyone hasa right to dream Byrd...
Anyway, another thing: Why is it that everytime the media covers some strange and/or extraordinary, the "skeptics" practically always get the last word? Even if what they say is hogwash?

Because a lot of time the strange/extraordinary event is hogwash?

Have you been around academic science much? There's hardly a theory that staggers out into public that DOESN'T get whacked, including some of the more conservative things. It's what we call "peer review process," and any time you publish or present, you're very likely to run into a scholar with a contrarian view, who leaps all over your case with their data.

By that measure, skeptics always get the last word everywhere. In science, it guarantees better science. So far, the only things that ever got hit in one of my papers was the statistical model, but I have no doubt that as I publish more, I'll find more showing up ready to debate whatever it is that I find.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 07:35 AM
Yep, during my years studying pharmacy and medical school. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about when they allow pseudo skeptics to "debunk" a phenomenon, when there are obvious holes and flaws in that debunking, like calling the Mexican ufo's ball lightning. I'm not talking about when legitimate science has valid reason to dismiss phenomena based on experimental evidence to the contrary or theory.

That's the reason why I typed "skeptics" instead of skeptics...

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in