This is a preliminary version of x722 , further developed here; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x7221.htm .

Sociology and Classical Electromagnetism.

Sociology is the study of social behaviour or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation^[6] and critical analysis^[7] to develop a body of knowledge about social order, disorder, and change. Many sociologists aim to conduct research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes. Subject matter ranges from the micro-sociology level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and the social structure.

NB “Many sociologists aim to conduct research that may be applied directly to social policy and welfare,”

Paradigm change, like Phlogiston or Caloric, relates directly to social policy and welfare,”. There would be much more poverty and famine today if we retained Phlogiston or Caloric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

“Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1780s when Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier showed ....”

Lavoisier and Galileo failed to approach the matter by asking questions about the ruling paradigm. Had they merely asked questions about phlogiston, or a stationary earth, the opposition to their new theories would have been less.

The importance of the Catt case is that even when he merely asked for clarification of classical electromagnetism, no expert would reply. In the 1990s four experts were selected by their superiors and instructed to write to Catt, which they did once only, contradicting each other.

There the matter rested for a third of a century, until three Florence University Professors, in peer reviewed journals, defamed Catt, misrepresented his own (irrelevant) theories, misrepresented the 1990s four experts and “answered” “The Catt Question” cattq about classical electromagnetism incompetently.

Catt has been excluded from all peer reviewed journals in the world for 50 years, but published extensively in non-peer reviewed journals throughout that time.

It is clear to me that the Catt case, threatening paradigm change at the level which has not occurred for two centuries, has to be taken seriously by Brian Martin and Bart Simon, given their track record. The Catt case is not just one of many, and is more significant.

Ivor Catt 1 February 2017

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Yesterday I came across Bart Simon’s 2002 book; “Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion.” Dewey 539.1.93

Brian Martin has confirmed that the discipline; “Sociology of Science” excludes “Censorship in Science”. He recently used the word, unknown to me; “constructivist”, which I found in the Simon Bart book, along with the word I did know; “Whig science”, following the idea “Whig History”.

Very recently I did a Google search for three items;

“sociology of science” – one million hits;

“censorship in science” – 60,000 hits;

“sociology of science” + “censorship in science” – 6 hits, one of them mine.

It is clear to me that Brian Martin and Simon Bart have to look into the Catt case, given their track record. Both have researched and published on “Undead Science”, Brian Martin on Louis Pascal on AIDS and Simon Bart on cold fusion.

Catt’s is not “Undead Science”, but something more extraordinary, an “Undead Question”. It has to be accepted within the halls of “Sociology of Science” represented for this purpose by Martin and Bart.

Ivor Catt 1 February 2017