Further development of of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x722.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 in August 1981, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j86.pdf pp95/6, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j100.pdf pp103/5 , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , for a decade no expert would reply. Then in the 1990s four experts were selected by their superiors and instructed to write to Catt, which they did once only, contradicting each other. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2813.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm

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. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cz2.htm . Catt’s reply was butchered. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm . The Italians’ reply to Catt’s reply was idiotic and irrelevant. Sociologists need to link that to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/ipub002a.htm ; “.... a different calibre of person is attracted to the large knowledge, lacking the ability to understand and defend a body of knowledge with many levels of meaning. They are 'maintenance men' rather than 'builders'. The central body of knowledge ossifies, becomes brittle and disintegrates.”

*Response to Dr. Catt***************

We confirm our explanations of “The Catt Question” published in IEEE AP Magazine (Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 242-244, December 2012) and Physical Education (Vol. 48, No.6, p. 718, 2013). .... .... Practice of Science is not based on the principle of authority, but on plausibility of argumentations, experimental evidence, and on the consensus of the scientific community expressed by the peer-review process .... ....

M. Pieraccini and S. Selleri DINFO – University of Florence, Italy 20 May 2015

This is their reply to the original (unbutchered) version of “Conflation” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm . Note that the reply mentions “peer review”.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x67a.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm

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. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j1.htm

It is clear to me that the Catt case, threatening paradigm change (by merely asking a question) 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