Thursday, August 7, 2014

Fred Hoyle and the Scientific Establishment

The behaviors of scientists supposedly at the apex of their professions, those presiding over foundations or organizations that ostensibly represent the field of science, the scientific establishment, are, with few exceptions, the bottom of their chosen professions.  They are literally  “incredible”.  Add venal, and petty to round out their personalities.  These behaviors are most often witnessed in children seeking revenge on peers; who, actually, or in the minds of the offended, harmed or embarrass them.  These "professionals" display their personalities in their behaviors acting in their profeeional capacities, and in the few written works found.  They are enamoured with the zero-tolerance method - a self-serving corruption of the scientific method.  

Obviously, these publication managers are not overly busy in their chosen profession.  The apparent roles they fill in their management positions are primarily gate keeper and professional neerdowell.  If they were competent or noteworthy in the discipline they chose to study, presiding over a foundation would not be an option considered.  They can be labeled failures if compared to the most brilliant and capable in their fields.  They must also examine the work of their more competent peers which surely must injure their already bruised egos.  The competition for grants and authority they lost long ago.  This explains why they pursued a career as gate keeper and political concubine. 

What… Actually, do they do?  They guard the fortresses of accepted and acceptable ideas.  Since these roles have more applicants than seats, they are easily replaced.  Those holding these positions must mind their words and actions.  Too many complaints from real scientists will lead to an early dismissal and replacement by another failed scientist.  Theories like evolution and the Big Bang, and nearly every other belief in the modern scientific lexicon are protected and promoted assiduously.  This is the true responsibility for the leadership of the science foundations.  Unfortunately, what moves the majority of failed scientists to seek these positions is not scientific - income, and the fame and notoriety blindly given them by an ignorant public are the mundane objectives.  The leadership also guard what is published under the moniker of the foundation.  Therein lay their power and influence. 

Remember too, these people are the product of academe.  Academe is where those who are unable to thrive in the private sector – where the greatest incomes and fame reside – seek tenure.  As more and more government dollars were accepted – to prove or substantiate the political goals of specific groups – homogeneity in many areas of thought became mandatory. Assuring what is published conforms to the popular fiction of the day, is one of the responsibilities these people hold.  Since there are numerous submittals made each publishing period, the leadership can pick and choose what topics and which scientists get published.  Here is when and where the venality and past offenses come to the fore.  Ruining a fellow “colleague” by refusing to publish, or show support are the means applied.  Not many know awards like the Nobel Prize are based upon input from drawn from the advice of leadership and publication.  Publication is vital for any international prize.  Prizes in the US conform to a similar finding from committees.  This explains why some scientists and their research literally never sees the light of day.  To receive invitations to speak and promote an idea requires publication. It’s clear how the scientific Council of Nicea reserves what’s published to enable their asserting envogue beliefs are the only beliefs, or that consensus is broad or complete (Global Warming). 


When I learned Sir Fred Hoyle never received a Nobel Prize, despite his colleagues – having studied under Hoyle, owing their work to Hoyle, and the topic under which they received their prize being a Hoyle specialty, I was stunned, before advancing humanity to scientists.  Hoyle's discovery needed recognition -  it was a legitimate and broad discovery.  It qualified as Noble worthy.  Hoyle's exclusion was based entirely upon his not agreeing with the popular fiction of his time.  He thought the Big Bang was ludicrous and argued against it.  Hoyle coined the phrase - Big Bang - mocking the idea.  Hoyle’s treatment exposes the above for the fears that drive the calculated, infantile, selfish, behaviors that arise when genius affronts the doctrine of dogmatic devotion. The consensus of beliefs – an unwavering faith in theories; faith that rises to theological reverence and all its trappings is the norm - and explains Hoyle's treatment.  Behaviors and belief systems that academics regularly assault as unthinking, banal, and removed from logic, are as common as a pocket protector, and perverse as the sex for grades gambit seen in universities and colleges within the science establishment.  

Always remember: No matter the profession – people are human beings first.  For the vast majority - duty to their professions and altruistic goals, only comes after the human needs are satisfied.  

No comments:

Post a Comment