The Decline of Science
30 October 2015
Dear Massimiliano Pieracchini,
I note that you did
not reply to my email in the past.
I have been
researching, lecturing on and studying the Politics of Knowledge for decades, even
before I was convinced, fifty years ago, that Peer Review would block all my
future work.
You
showed insight into the Scientific Referee System http://ivorcatt.co.uk/x1bf.pdf
in your novel. L’Anomalia, a
small part of which I translated and understood with difficulty;
From the book "L'Anomalia"
by Pieraccini, a best seller.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
You
could make a major contribution to the complex structure I am developing to
explain what is happening, leading to my article entitled "The Decline of
Science" which has been published in the Journal of Information Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Information_Ethics
, and should have
reached me this month, October. It begins as follows;
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Journal of Information Ethics
The Decline of Science
Ivor Catt. 19 August 2015
When
people cooperate for an unacknowledged purpose their association is called a
conspiracy, yet suppression of novelty by [peer] review is not a plot cooked up
between referees and the establishment. But conspiracies can arise by evolution
instead of by design, with the members falling into their roles by accident and
finding them congenial. The establishment gives referees great power over other
peoples’ lives. The referees repay the establishment by suppressing new
discoveries. It is not necessary that either side understand the arrangement. -
Dr Charles McCutchen [1]
Are professors, editors, referees and text book
writers behaving unethically?
Without barriers to
communication there can be no communication – Dr. Anatol
Holt [2]
I am
not saying that the forces of decadence know that they are strangling their social
group's future - indeed the essence of their decadence is their ignorance of
what they are doing. Generally, they believe they are maintaining standards. – Ivor Catt [2]
The professor or
peer reviewer or text book writer has a duty to maintain standards. How much of
his time should he spend on this? Should he spend more time, or less time,
reading and understanding an alleged paradigm change? Would it be unethical if he
did not read beyond the title; “The End of Electric Charge and Electric Current
as we know them”? [3] [ http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x111.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm
]
When the ruling paradigm was phlogiston, were
those who read, or published, or taught nothing about the new (bizarre) theory
of combustion by oxidation unethical?
Nothing on the
scale of the removal of phlogiston or caloric has occurred for 200 years.
Therefore the suppression of such a major proposed paradigm change, “Theory C”,
may not be unethical. We should not blame a system which fails to deal with an
event which occurs less than once in a century. Perhaps we should not blame
those who, “maintaining standards”, 200 years ago may have suppressed the new
oxidation theory, which was for them obviously absurd. Anyway, I have published
that “it is important for a professional scientist to not understand something
which it is in his interest to not understand”. That would probably have
applied to oxidation. The safest career option is to not understand heresy, or
better to not have heard of it.
What happened with AIDS is not on the scale of paradigm change, but all
the same it is very interesting. Sir Gregory Winter, the Master of my
(when undergraduate) college, Trinity College, Cambridge, told me .... ....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Peer Review has
blocked publication on “The Catt Question” for 30 years. You then broke through
with two articles;
IEEE Article on
"Catt's Anomaly"
Your retitling “The Catt Question” into “Catt’s anomaly” and
“An apparent paradox: Catt’s anomaly” indicates political sophistication on
your part. Would the articles have come through peer review had they not
rubbished Catt?
Would
the Question; “What is the role of the Holy Ghost?” be heresy? Thinking of “Modern Physics” as Religion rather than
Science, is even the
Questioning of dogma (Classical electromagnetism) heresy? I think today’s
Science Establishment is so paranoid that for them it is heresy. A Question is
heresy! Then why did you get past Peer Review?
I wonder if these
issues are discussed in your novel, which I cannot read. I wonder whether your getting past Peer Review with
“The Catt Question” was based on your political sophistication, or accident.
Examples of my work
are here;
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0605.htm http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/Y65BRILL.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/3600.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/5b1.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Lynch
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8a6.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0804.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x1cp.pdf http://www.ivorcatt.com/459.htm
The key book on this subject is by the
late Gordon Moran, in whose house I stayed near Florence. “Silencing Scholars
…. …. “ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LwlCqYk3aLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22gordon+moran%22+%2B+%22silencing+scientists%22&source=bl&ots=BlpjRdRtgo&sig=zln05F0wF-7j68t2lXsBy4D-BBM&hl=en&ei=NDNuTb_YCcW7hAflmYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22gordon%20moran%22%20%2B%20%22silencing%20scientists%22&f=false
.I would love to have
you contribute to my work.
Ivor Catt
121 Westfields,
St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England.
+44 (0) 1727 864257