Gods of Academia

reply to post by radarloveguy

Originally posted by radarloveguy
reply to post by randyvs

 

Most scientists have dedicated their endeavours towards destroying the natural world ,

Wowwww, random baseless statement much? I think the word you're looking for is 'investigating' rather than 'destroying'. They want to figure out how everything works.

so of course they are reluctant to admit that God exists , or could possibly be smarter than them !

Scientists don't tend to mind the prospect of other people being smarter than them, primarily since they regularly encounter intellectual competition. As for admitting God exists...it wouldn't be admitting, because that would mean they know a deity exists. Where is the evidence that this deity exists?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Wowwww, random baseless statement much? I think the word you're looking for is 'investigating' rather than 'destroying'. They want to figure out how everything works.

Yes, it's a huge sweeping generalization. I'm actually studying Wildlife Biology, and our entire field is based on managing habitats and researching the natural world.

I would also add that raw science is neither good or bad, it's how it's applied.

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd, first thanks for your reply and input.

Can you explain to me (I'm confused here) about the repression? As far as I can tell, they were allowed to write any paper they liked, publish books, and even had corporations funding their controversial research.

You are not the only one that is confused, that includes me also. I will try to explain it. Here is a Quote from my first post here by "Suppressed Scientists".

Establishment science has thus gotten into the habit of ignoring, burying or suppressing what has now become astonishing amounts of anomalous evidence.

Let´s take for example Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. As mentioned on "Suppressed Scientists".

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Events preceding announcement.

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket.[21]

The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.[21] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone.[20] They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.[21] In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.

Now this "Neutron-Flux", was not of commercial value because further study must been done, or better said further research. That´s why Jones,Fleischmann and Pons, decided to publish their works simultaneously. In other words their work was not ready for "Commercial-Use".

Announcement

Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,[23] broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.[21] Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to Nature after the press conference.

The University of Utah pressured Fleischmann and Pons, to publish their work,without taking in consideration the "Neutron-Flux"cause further study must been done. In other words it was "Repressed". Now why would the University of Utah pressured them?? I would say "Money", or better said "Funding".

Response and fallout

In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[19] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[34][35] Fleischmann and Pons replied to this critique.[36] The preliminary note was followed up a year later with a much longer paper that went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[20] Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[27]

In the ensuing years, several books came out critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers.[47] Up to today, the scientific community continues to maintain a skeptical consensus with regards to the subject due to the seeming lack of experimental reproducibility[48] and cold fusion's theoretical implausibility.[49] New experimental claims are routinely dismissed or ignored by mainstream scientists and journals

That´s why the "Suppressed-Scientists" concludes that also victims of this phenomenon includes world-class scientists such as Jacques Benveniste, Peter Duesberg, Halton Arp, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman".

(silly aside: I'd love it if someone would repress me like they have Fleischmann and give me a job at Berkeley! Quick! Suppress me!! Please!!!)

Yeah, "Suppress" brings enough publicity. I agree.


Peace

reply to post by Seed76

Hi Byrd, first thanks for your reply and input.

I'd personally like to thank everyone who has participated in the hammering out of this discussion. I had know idea it would recieve even this amount of attention. I think some great points have been made on both sides. However, with the addition of Byrds most recent post with in. I think it's safe to say, the arguement against my OP seems far more solid. At least for the moment. Thank you one and all.