THE PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE: ACCEPTING JUST ONE "THEORY"

WE ARE A WORLD DIVIDED...EACH GROUP, EACH CULTURE, EACH OF US HAS WORKED OUT OUR OWN THEORIES/BELIEFS ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
WE HANG ONTO THOSE, AS, PERHAPS, WE SHOULD, "COME HELL OR HIGH WATER".

THERE'S JUST ONE MAJOR THING WRONG WITH THAT...IT CAUSES CONFLICT, OFTEN WARS, AND SOMETIMES, DEATH.

WE ADHERE TO JUST ONE 'THEORY' AND REJECT ALL OTHERS.
SOMETIMES WE DO SO BECAUSE WE WERE TAUGHT TO DO SO, BUT SOME OF US DO SO BECAUSE WE HAVE LOOKED AT ALL 'THEORIES/BELIEFS' AND CHOSEN FOR OURSELVES WHICH WE CAN LIVE WITH, WHICH ONE SUITS US BEST.

IF YOU WILL, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME WHILE I MAKE LENGTHY INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL STORY I HOPE TO PRESENT THIS TIME...
THE REAL STORY OF "WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE"
OR, WHAT'S WRONG WITH ONE SINGLE THEORY FITTING ALL.
I AM 'OLD', HUMOR ME, IF YOU WILL, AND IF NOT, ADIEU!

WHEN I WAS YOUNG, MY FATHER ASKED ME WHAT MY 'RELIGIOUS BELIEFS' WERE.
AT THE TIME, I DIDN'T KNOW AND WAS AFRAID TO VOICE ANYTHING CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT THE FAMILY SAW AS THE ONE SINGLE WAY TO BELIEVE.
GENTLY, MASTERFULLY, HE DRAGGED IT OUT OF ME...I WASN'T SURE.
HE SUGGESTED THAT I EXPLORE ALL 'RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS', BUT EXPLORE THEM THOROUGHLY, MAKE DEDICATED STUDIES OF EACH, TAKE MY TIME, READ AND RESEARCH, EVEN WHEN DOING SO MADE ME FEEL ANGRY OR THREATENED OR WAS AGAINST WHAT I WANTED TO BELIEVE/ACCEPT.

I SPENT ALMOST 25 YEARS ON THAT. WELL, HONESTLY, I AM STILL 'EXPLORING'.

WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS THAT EACH BELIEF SYSTEM HAD WITHIN IT SOMETHING, LARGE OR SMALL, THAT I COULD HONESTLY AGREE WITH, SEE AS TRUTH, ACCEPT AS LOGICAL OR CORRECT.
WHAT A DILEMMA!
HOW COULD I CHOOSE JUST ONE?
I DID CHOOSE, EVENTUALLY, BUT MY "ONE THEORY" ACTUALLY INCORPORATES MANY...IT IS A "MONGREL" BELIEF SYSTEM. IT ISN'T YOUR EVERYDAY SIMPLE CONCEPT OF THE SINGLE THEORY AT ALL.
BUT IT MAKES ME HAPPY, AND I ADJUST IT, TWEAK IT A LITTLE HERE AND THERE AS I UNCOVER NEW THINGS. I AM UNMINDFUL OF WHAT IS 'SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE' OR 'POLITICALLY CORRECT', YOU SEE.
I DON'T CARE IF ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH CAN ACCEPT WHAT I BELIEVE.
I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I AM ALL FOR OTHERS HOLDING AS TIGHTLY TO THEIR BELIEFS AS I DO.
THAT INITIAL EXPLORATION INTO ALL 'THEORIES' ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TAUGHT ME THAT IT IS EASILY APPLIED TO ALL FACETS OF HUMAN LIFE.
I COULD DO THE SAME WITH "CREATION THEORY VERSUS EVOLUTION", OR WITH ANY OTHER SET OF CONTROVERSIAL THEORIES AND BELIEFS THAT HUMANS HOLD.

THAT IS WHY THE "RUSSIAN ROULETTE RANT" HERE.
SURE, ALL SHOULD BELIEVE WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, WHATEVER THEORY BUT SHOULD THAT PROMPT US TO TIE ONE ANOTHER UP AND FORCIBLY TRY TO CRAM WHAT WE BELIEVE DOWN ANOTHER'S THROAT?
HELL NO!

AND SHOULD WE GO TO WAR, VERBALLY OR PHYSICALLY, WITH THOSE WHO WON'T ACCEPT WHAT WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO ACCEPT?
AGAIN, HELL NO!

I KEEP TRYING TO SHOW THOSE WHO READ HERE AND "TAKE EXCEPTION TO" WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS BLOG THAT THEY CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT I ACCEPT, COULD PERHAPS HAVE A DEEPER LOOK INTO THINGS, EMOTIONS AND PREJUDICES ASIDE, AND SEE IF ANY OF IT "COMPUTES", IF IT MAKES ANY LOGICAL OR FACTUAL SENSE AT ALL, AND, IF NOT, DON'T BOTHER READING HERE AGAIN.
YES, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
I DON'T GIVE A HANG ABOUT HIGH READERSHIP, ABOUT WHO OR HOW MANY READ HERE IN A DAY OR A YEAR OR A DECADE.
THIS IS MY BLOG, MY WAY, AND IT'S JUST ME, ONE HUMAN BEING, SAYING TO ALL YOU OTHER HUMAN BEINGSS WHAT I HAVE FOUND.
YES, I'M INTERESTED, VERY INTERESTED, IN HOW ALL OF YOU PERCEIVE EVERYTHING, HOW YOU THINK, WHAT YOU KNOW.
I SPENT MANY LONG, HARD-WORKING YEARS TRYING TO FIND A WAY INTO OTHER HUMAN MINDS...AND FOUND NONE.
IT'S A VOLUNTARY THING, OPENING ONE'S MIND TO ANOTHER.
IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY GIFT TO SHARE A THOUGHT WITH A TOTAL STRANGER, OR A CLOSE FRIEND, OR EVEN A RELATIVE.

BUT THIS "ONE THEORY FITS ALL" IS PURE BULL MANURE.
AND THAT WE DECIDE ON JUST ONE WITHOUT CAREFUL, DEDICATED, DILIGENT THOUGHT, HARD WORK, DIGGING INTO DARK PLACES THAT MAY SCARE US OR MAKE US ANGRY, MAY TAX OUR OWN BELIEFS, IS BOTH CRIMINAL AND A BIT INSANE, DON'T YOU THINK?

AN EXAMPLE...HAD I NOT ACCIDENTALLY COME ACROSS THE ARTICLE ON THE CONTAMINATION OF THE POLIO VACCINES GIVEN TO ALL OF US IN THE 1950s, I MAY HAVE NEVER REALIZED WHY SO MANY IN MY SMALL CLASS (INCLUDING MYSELF) DEVELOPED CANCERS.
IT ANGERED ME, SCARED ME, BUT IT ALSO EMPOWERED ME AND STRENGTHENED ME.

HAD I NOT READ THE HIGHLY IRRITATING BOOK BY VINE DELORIA, JR, "GOD IS RED", I MAY HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD MY OWN GRANDPARENTS' ADHERENCE TO THE "WORLD IS FLAT" IDEA THEY HELD AS SACRED. I'D NEVER HAVE KNOWN WHY OR HOW THEIR BELIEFS COULD BE SO DIFFERENT FROM "THE NORM".

WELL, ALL THAT SAID TO INTRODUCE THIS:
A RUINED CAREER...WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?MIDWESTERN EPIGRAPHIC JOURNAL, Volume 16, Number 1, 2002
WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?
Nothing with science per se. It is a method used for looking at a small part of reality, mainly the physical universe. The problem arises when people, both scientists and the general public, try to make it something it is not -- a world view, for example.

BUT YOU OFTEN HEAR OF "THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW"
A contradiction in terms. Science deals with measuring and manipulating concrete facts. A world view looks at those facts from a certain perspective. ALL world views are taken on faith, even supposedly scientific ones.

SUCH AS?
Such as the one that claims the physical universe we know is all there is, and that it developed by chance over time.

IS THAT SUCH A BAD THEORY?
Not if we remember it is only one theory or philosophy, or religion or world view among many equally as valid. The danger arises when it becomes THE ONLY theory. Then it is only a matter of time until it is crammed down our throats as FACT.

When that happens, good-by free inquiry.

DO YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING IN WESTERN CULTURE?
Look around you. When was the last time you heard that particular theory seriously questioned by the scientific media?

BUT AGAIN, IS THAT BAD IF IT'S THE CORRECT WORLD VIEW?
Do you mean politically correct? It obviously is that, but that would make me question it more than ever!

WHY??
Look at history.. Since when has any government, even the best, remained faithful to the ideal of the welfare of the common man?

WHY WOULD GOVERNMENTS BE SO INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR WORLD VIEW?
Because it's interwoven with the Theory of Evolution: accept one, you have to accept the other.

YOU HAVE TO...OR DO YOU?
DO YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT ONE ENTIRELY AND REJECT ANOTHER ENTIRELY?
NO, NO, NO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY SUCH THING!

SUCH THINKING RUINED A RESPECTED SCIENTIST'S REPUTATION.
SHE WAS A PART OF ANOTHER "GEOLOGICAL SURVEY", THIS ONE IN MEXICO.
"An Interview with: Virginia Steen - McIntyre, FMES , Idaho Springs, Colorado"
ON THAT INFAMOUS "DIG" BY THE USGS IN MEXICO, SEVERAL METHODS OF "DATING" OF THAT SITE BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, DR. STEEN-MCINTYRE FOR ONE, SCREAMED THAT THE SITE WAS A QUARTER OF A MILLION YEARS OLD, THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAD LIVED THERE, LEFT BEHIND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS OVERWHELMING, PROVING "MODERN MAN" WAS ALIVE AND WELL OVER 100,000 YEARS PRIOR TO WHAT SCIENCE HAD FORMERLY BELIEVED, AND CRUSHING "DARWIN'S THEORY".

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962.
in mid-1969, B.J. Szabo, Malde and Irwin-Williams[2] published their first paper about dating the excavation site. The stone tools were discovered in situ in a stratum that also contained animal remains. Radiocarbon dating of the animal remains produced an age of over 35,000 ybp. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ybp, ± 60,000 years.

In 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatlaco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's stream bed hypothesis.
 Moreover, the team undertook an exhaustive analysis of volcanic ash and pumice from the original excavation site and the surrounding region. Using the zircon fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash from Hueyatlaco's tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ybp +/- 240,000 years.

The confirmation of an anomalously distant age for human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site led to tension between Irwin-Williams and the other team members. Malde and Fryxell announced the findings at a Geological Society of America meeting, admitting that they could not account for the anomalous results. Irwin-Williams responded by describing their announcement as "irresponsible".[6] Given the substantial margin of error for the fission-track findings, and the then-new method of uranium dating, Irwin-Williams asserted that Hueyatlaco had not been accurately dated to her satisfaction.

The authors stated that they had no definitive explanation for the anomalous results
The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated with the U.S. Geological Survey.

For the next several years, the excavation team were often at odds as they discussed how to move forward with the Hueyatlaco findings. Malde and Steen-McIntyre argued that the 200,000 ybp findings were valid, while Irwin-Williams argued in favor of a more recent -- though still somewhat controversial -- figure of 20,000 ybp. Webb and Clark suggest that her promoting the 20,000ybp date is "particularly puzzling," as it was unsupported by any evidence the team uncovered.

The delays forced Steen-McIntyre to write her doctoral dissertation not on Hueyatlaco as planned, but rather on the dating of volcanic ash in geographic strata.

Despite leading the original excavations, Irwin-Williams never published a final report on the site.
 The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years1.' because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago.

He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don't fit.

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT FIT THE ACCEPTED "ONE SINGLE THEORY" OF...EVOLUTION...OF MAN'S "KNOWN" LENGTH OF TIME ON PLANET EARTH.   
GOOD OLD "EVOLUTION THEORY", BOWED AND SCRAPED TO BY ALL THE WESTERN WORLD, AND SOME ELSEWHERE.
EVOLUTION...BELOVED OF MEN LIKE CHAIRMAN MAO, ADOLF HITLER, EVEN AS A DEFENSE FOR MURDERERS, BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, MAN IS MERELY DESCENDED FROM "LOW-LIFE", FROM "POND SCUM", AND THIS, THIS "FACT", THAT MAN COMES FROM THE SAME ANCESTRY AS AN AMOEBIC ORGANISM, MEANS THAT MAN IS EXPECTED TO BEHAVE LIKE THE OTHER ANIMALS, ANIMALS OF PREY, ANIMALS WHO FEED ON OTHER ANIMALS, ANIMALS WHO KILL WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT "MORALS", THAT MAN DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNEXPECTED OF AN ANIMAL WHEN HE TAKES ANOTHER LIFE.
EVOLUTION JUSTIFIES THE BASENESS, THE INHERENT SAVAGERY OF MAN.

MAN IS "NEW" TO THE GAME OF LIFE, SO HE HASN'T HAD THE REQUIRED TIME TO ATTUNE HIMSELF TO A HIGHER LEVEL, TO ELEVATE HIMSELF ABOVE HIS ANCESTORS.
WHY, MAN IS THE MOST RECENT OF ALL "EVOLUTION", THE FINAL RUNG IN THE LADDER, THE TOP LIMB IN THE OLD TREE OF LIFE.
HE IS "JUST A DESCENDANT OF APES", AFTER ALL, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW UNSEEMLY THOSE APES CAN BEHAVE, RIGHT?

AHHH, EVOLUTION, THE GREAT EXCUSE.
THE ONLY THEORY, YES, JUST A MERE THEORY, THAT WILL MAKE IT ALMOST OKAY FOR A MAN TO BEAT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN, OR "MAKE" HUMANS DISLOYAL TO ONE ANOTHER, "CAUSE" THEM TO COMMIT UNSPEAKABLE ACTS THAT HORRIFY US, OR SO WE SAY...
MAN IS "JUST BEHAVING LIKE HIS ANCESTORS"...WHAT MORE CAN WE EXPECT FROM "LOW-LIFE POND SCUM"?

BUT IF, IF INDEED, MAN HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 250,000 YEARS, OR LONGER, AND IF THERE WAS LIFE IIN THIS HEMISPHERE BEFORE ANYONE IS WILLING TO AMIT THERE WAS LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE, WHY, MY GOODNESS! THE REPERCUSSIONS, THE "HORORS" THAT MIGHT STEM FROM THAT ARE EARTH-SHAKING!
WE CANNOT, MUST NOT DREAM THAT MAN IS AND WAS OLDER THAN IMAGINED, ESPECIALLY NOT IN MEXICO, OR NORTH OR SOUTH "AMERICA"!
GOD FORBID!

THAT WOULD UPSET THE APPLE CART, ROCK THE OLD BOAT (DARWIN'S HMS BEAGLE?) UNTIL IT SUNK, AND STOP THE EXCUSES FOR MAN'S "INNATE EVIL", HIS AVARICE, HIS ANIMALISTIC TENDENCIES, RIGHT?

HOW DID STEENS-MCINTYRE AND THE OTHERS, THE TESTED AND RE-TESTED DATING, THE PROOF GET OVER-RIDDEN BY ONE WOMAN, BY IRWIN-WILLIAMS?"A matter of influence on her part and lack of it on mine," SAYS STEENS-MCINTYRE. "She was an anthropologist, a graduate of Radcliffe and Harvard with powerful friends; I was a geologist with a new PhD from the University of Idaho, looking for a job."
"First thing you learned in the coffee room was who was "in the know" and who was "out of it". It became almost a game, verbally cutting to pieces those who didn't count. C.S. Lewis caught the flavor of the game in his novel THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH."
CAN THAT BE? THINK ABOUT THE "OFFICE POLITICS" WHERE YOU WORK, OR THE SWAY ONE FAMILY MEMBER CARRIES OVER OTHERS, MAYBE?

MAVERICK SCIENTISTS OBVIOUSLY DO NOT HAVE IT EASY. DO YOU SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE THE LONE RANGER?

More like one of a bunch of Davids slinging stones at Goliath. Hueyatlaco isn't the only censored early man site in the New World, it's the tip of an iceberg.

There's the late Tom Lee, a Canadian archaeologist. He had the misfortune to find an early site on an island in one of the Great Lakes in the 50's. Not only did he lose his government job, he actually was committed to an insane asylum for a time!

There's Dee Simpson and her Calico site in the Mojave Desert of California. The soil developed on top of the sediment column containing the artifacts is 200,000 years old, which makes the sediment layers and artifacts beneath it much older.

Louis Leakey of African fame recognized the stone tools as tools -- not the result of natural causes -back in the 60's. Then there's George Carter and his sites in the San Diego area. He's been battling the archaeologic establishment for 50 years! And many more.

WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE NOW?
S.M:Several things.
First of all, there needs to be more research in the Valsequillo area: more radiometric dates, more field work, more archaeologic excavations. Fortunately, through support of a wealthy philanthropist, this is happening. Scientists from the USA and Mexico have been working there since the fall of 1997.

I have not been told the results of their research -- I'm certain that they will want to report on it themselves -- but I have been told that it should make me very happy!

    Second, we must somehow reverse an alarming trend that has appeared in the research community today, a trend towards "feel good" science, where facts no longer count if they question a politically correct world view.

    It was precisely that type of "science" that reigned in the Soviet Union for decades. And what a headache it caused to all concerned!

Third, the censorship of our work and the work of our colleagues MUST STOP! Scientists cannot afford to be rigid in their theories, at least if they are searching for truth.

We must separate science- as-a-method, which is available for all to use, from our world views. Each one of us has a world view we live by, whether we are aware of it or not.

Each is unique, developing out of our personal life experiences. Each is taken on faith.

Recognize the fact! Work with it! A knotty problem such as the age of the first humans in the New World can only benefit from a multi-pronged attack by scientists with different world views.

    My ideal: a search for truth in an atmosphere of free inquiry and mutual respect. After all, isn't that what science should be all about?"

WELL, YES, THAT SUMS IT UP NICELY, DOESN'T IT?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "JUST ONE THEORY FITS ALL" IDEOLOGY?

ASK DR. THOMAS GOLD, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA NEW YORK.
PLEASE, DO READ WHAT HE SAYS CAREFULLY...IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO.

"I want to discuss this danger and the various tendencies that seem to me to create it, or augment it. I can draw on personal experiences in my 40 years of work on various branches of science and also on many of the great controversies that have occurred in that same period.
    I will start very naively by defining what a scientist is. He is a person who will judge a matter purely by its scientific merits. His judgment will be unaffected by the evaluation that he makes or the judgment that others would make.

    He will be unaffected by the historical evaluation of the subject. His judgment will depend only on the evidence as it stands at the present time. The way in which this came about is irrelevant for the scientific judgment; it is what we now know today that should determine his judgment.

    His judgment is unaffected by the perception of how it will be received by his peers and unaffected by how it will influence his standing, his financial position, his promotion - any of these personal matters.

    If the evidence appears to him to allow several different interpretations at that time, he will carry each on of those in his mind, and as new evidence comes along, he will submit each new item of evidence to each of the possible interpretations, until a definitive decision can be made.

    That is my naive definition of a scientist.

I may have reduced the number of those whom you think of as scientists very considerably by that definition. In fact, I may have reduced it to a null class. But, of course, we have to be realistic and realize that people have certain motivations.
If there was no question about appealing to one's peers to be acknowledged, to have a reasonably comfortable existence, and so on, if none of this came into the picture, I doubt that many people would choose a life of science.

When the other motivations come into the act, of course the judgment becomes cloudy, becomes different from the ideal one, from the scientific viewpoint, and that is where the main problem lies. What are the motivations?

If there are motivations that vary from individual to individual, it would not matter all that much because it would not drive the scientific community as much to some common, and possibly bad, judgment.

But if there are motivations that many share, then of course that is another matter; then it may drive the whole scientific community in the field in the wrong direction.

So, we must think: what are the communal judgment-clouding motivations? What is the effect of the sociological setting? Is our present-day organization of scientific work favorable or unfavorable in this respect? Are things getting worse, or are they getting better? That is the kind of thing we would like to know.

The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the question is whether the pace of discovery will continue to accelerate. If we were driving in the wrong direction - in the direction where no new ideas can be accepted - then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would be stifled.

What are the many factors that many people might share that go against the acceptance of scientifically valid new ideas? One obvious factor that has always been with us is the unwillingness to learn new things. Too many people think that what they learned in college or in the few years thereafter is all that there is to be learned in the subject, and after that they are practitioners not having to learn anymore.

I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the "herd instinct" has been a disaster in science.

 It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.

Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge.

"Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?"

That is enough justification. It isn't to me, but it is to very many other people. The sheep in the interior of the herd are well protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog.

It is this tendency for herd behavior that is greatly aggravated by the support structure of science in which we believe nowadays. I will read out just one passage here to show that people other than myself have recognized the herd problems: David Michland writes in the REVIEWS OF ASTRONOMY:

    "I sometimes wonder if the much encouraged and proclaimed interaction among western astronomers leads to a form of mental herd behavior which, if it does not actually put a clamp upon free thinking, insidiously applies the pressure to follow the fashion.

    This makes the writings of our Soviet colleagues who have partly developed ideas in comparative isolation all the more valuable."

 This question of how the support of science - and I don't mean only the financial support but also the journals, the judgment of referees, the invitations to conferences, acknowledgments of every kind - and how that interacts with the question of herd behavior, is what I will now discuss.

It is important to recognize how strong this interaction really is. Suppose that you have a subject in which there is no clear-cut decision to be made between a variety of opinions and therefore no clear-cut decision to be made in which direction you should put money or which direction you should favor for publications, and so on. No doubt opinions would need a multidimensional space to be presented, but I will at the moment just represent them in a one-dimensional situation.

Suppose you have some curve between the extreme of this opinion and the extreme of that opinion. You have some indefinite, statistically quite insignificant distribution of opinions. Now in that situation, suppose that the refereeing procedure has to decide where to put money in research, which papers to publish, and so on.

What would happen? Well, people would say, "We can't really tell, but surely we shouldn't take anybody who is out here on either extreme of the curve). Slightly more people believe in this position than in any other, so we will select our speakers at the next conference from this position on the opinion curve, and we will judge to whom to give research funds," because the referees themselves will of course be included in great numbers in some such curve. "We will select some region there to supply the funds."

And so, a year later what will have happened? You will have combed out some of the people who were out there, and you will have put more people into this region. Each round of decision making has the consequence of essentially taking the initial curve and multiplying it by itself.

Now we understand the mathematical consequence of taking a shallow curve and multiplying it by itself a large number of times. What happens?

In the mathematical limit it becomes a delta function at the value of the initial peak. What does that mean? If you go for long enough, you will have created the appearance of unanimity.

It will look as if you have solved the problem because all agree, and of course you have got absolutely nothing. If no new fact has come to light and the subject has gone on for long enough, - this is what happens. And it does happen!

It is also very clear there that the holding-in that has taken place has been an absolute disaster to research. It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, the wouldn't have a hope.

    I believe that our present way of conducting science is deeply afflicted by this tendency. The peer review system, which we regard as the only fair way we know of to distribute money (I don't think it is, but it is generally thought to be) is an absolute disaster. It is a completely unstable method. It is completely prone to this tendency; there is no getting out of it.

    The more reviews you require for a proposal - now the NSF requires seven reviewers for a proposal - the more you require, the more certain it is that you will follow the statistical tendency dictated by this principle. If you had "noise" in the situation, it would be much better.

 Why is it thought that the peer review system would work for science? How about trying to make a peer review system work for other forms of endeavor? Suppose we had a national foundation for the arts, and every painter had to apply to it to get his canvas and his brushes and his paints?

How do you suppose that would work? I can imagine some of the consequences, but better than that, we can look them up in historical examples. If you want to read such, in the book The Experts Speak, you can do that. There is a long list of them that you can read - it makes marvelous reading.

Eduard Manet wrote to his colleague Claude Monet, of Renoir: "He has no talent at all, that boy. Tell him to give up painting."

"Rembrandt was regarded as not comparable with an extraordinarily gifted artist, Mr. Ripingill."

William Blake spoke of Titian and the Venetians as "such idiots are not artists."

Degas regarded Toulouse-Lautrec" as merely a painter of a period of no consequence."

One wonders how art would have fared in a peer review system.

Or would it be different in music? We can read what was said of Beethoven's compositions by musicians of his time: "An orgy of vulgar noises" was the verdict of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony by Mr. Spore, a German violinist and composer.

On Tchaikovsky's appreciation of Brahms, "I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard. It annoys me that this jumping, inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius."

But one could go on almost endlessly with such quotations. Music would not have fared any better.

    So we see that the herd instinct is a tendency in the human makeup, which is itself a severe handicap for science. Instead of combating it as best we can, we have arranged a method of nurturing science which actually strengthens it enormously - makes it virtually impossible to depart from the herd and continue to have support, continue to have a chance of publication, continue to have all the advantages that one requires to work in a field.
If in a subject there was initially a diversity of opinions, the review system will assure a very short life for that condition, and soon the field will be closed to all but those who are in the center. "

DO YOU SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED?
AS ALWAYS, ITS AN "US AGAINST THEM" MENTALITY DRIVING WHAT WE CALL SCIENCE.
IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY, THE FAME, THE BRAGGING RIGHTS, AND NOT SO MUCH ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG, TRUTH, ETHICS, REAL DISCOVERY.

SCIENCE SUPPRESSES, AS WE SEE IN JUST THE TWO EXAMPLES ABOVE.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?
IT ISN'T ACCEPTING OF FACTS THAT DON'T FIT THE OLD, COMMONLY-HELD, "BEST" THEORIES.
IT WANTS TO COVER UP NEW AND BETTER RESEARCH THAT DISAGREES WITH THE LIKES OF DARWIN, ET AL.
IT'S A UNION OF OLD FUDDY-DUDDIES WHO HAVE DETERMINED, IN THEIR OWN SMALL, NEVER-EXPANDING MINDS, THAT ALL IS WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED, AND NEW DETERMINATIONS ARE UNNECESSARY IF IT MEANS ONE OF THE "ILLUSTRIOUS" ONES, ONE OF THEIR OWN WHOM THEY HAVE ELEVATED TO GOD-LIKE STATUS IS DISPROVEN, OR EVEN BROUGHT IN TO QUESTION.

WELL, LEARN, OR PERISH, RIGHT?
LOOKING ABOUT AT OUR CURRENT STATUS AS A HUMAN SOCIETY, I'D CALL "PERISH"...WOULDN'T  YOU?
PROGRESS?
WHAT PROGRESS?
WHEN WE'RE STILL KILLING EACH OTHER OVER DIFFERENCES OF OPINION/BELIEFS/THEORIES, WHAT PROGRESS CAN WE CLAIM?
AH, BUT WE ARE JUST THE "NEW BREED OF APE-PEOPLE", RIGHT?
AND APES WILL BE APES.
UNTIL THEY STOP WANTING TO BE APES...MAYBE?
OR UNTIL THEY REALIZE THEY NEVER WERE APES AT ALL?




OTHER SOURCES:
1. VC Steen-McIntyre, "A Quarter-Million-Year-Old Habitation site Found in Mexico", Ancient American, NO. 19/20, 72-78 (1997).

2. VC Steen-McIntyre, "Has Man Been in the New World for a Quarter - Million Years? " , Midwestern Epigraphic Journal 12/13, 35-42 (1998-99); Barnes Review, 31-36 (1998)..










X