Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.
----------------------------------------------

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

BEST VIEWED IN LARGE FONT
Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Expanded name

Science and Ethics Guardian – why?

Blog host disavers all moral superiority

ethicsscience.jpgFollowing the events and claims of HIV∫AIDS and its dissent over two and a half years, from January 2005 to mid-2007, with Comments open to and attracting contradictions and objections from all comers, the blog host has sadly concluded that the case against HIV as the cause of AIDS, the ruling paradigm under assessment in New AIDS Review, is complete, and there are no further arguments or supposed evidence to entertain against the debunkers who have weighed in against it.

For that reason, as we have noted, the expansion of the topic to other paradigms under review, such as human caused global warming, cancer caused by oncogenes, etc., which we have dealt with from time to time, seemed appropriate to avoid repetition.

Moreover, it has also become increasingly clear that the fundamental issue in discriminating between good science and bad science is whether the science is practiced according to genuine professional standards or not, ie without bias introduced by human nature (see the blog logo) and without the distortion introduced by censorship, bullying and other means of evading open review (see Anthony Fauci, John P. Moore, Mark Wainberg).

Ethics are fundamental

ethics.jpgSince good science is truthseeking, and a social activity in which professional standards are maintained, it seems to us that the ethics of good and bad behavior are the fundamental rules that have to be observed to get it, and that this blog is concerned as much with those ethics as with science per se (data, observation, hypothesis and theory).

So we have expanded the title of the blog to Science and Ethics Guardian to better reflect our area of concern.

Lest this give the wrong, arrogant impression we hasten to add that this implies absolutely nothing about the behavior of the blog host, who in no way sets himself up as the example to be followed, though admittedly we do try to live a decent life in accordance with the principles we imagine lead to the greatest social happiness and personal security of all.

Calling Exxon, Shell, etc.

moneybag1.jpegHowever, we also hurry to admit that if the representatives of large corporate entities or other fine institutions wish to offer us contributions to enable us to go forward with the work of this blog in promulgating what we think are worthwhile social goals, and those contributions are large enough, we cannot promise that we will refuse, and if we accept we cannot guarantee that our minds and our posts will not be subtly twisted in the general direction of tolerance of the self-serving views and opinions which seem to go hand in hand with such gifts in the case of other commentators.

For who are we to claim we are less human than anybody else ?

And we certainly wouldn’t want to be caught being an ethical Mrs Grundy.

mrs-grundy.pngSUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

There’s a man that plays and sings…

WHAT a shocking state of things,

Oh, my goodness, Mrs. GRUNDY!

There’s a man that plays and sings

In a Blackpool hall on Sunday!

Oh, what wickedness, oh, dear!

Sunday music! What a scandal!

Folks might even go and hear

Things by HAYDN or by HANDEL!

Rush and find some obsolete

Act of wise and pious GEORGES,

Which will help us to defeat

Such abominable orgies!

But here’s worse news, I declare;

Gracious patience, Mrs. GRUNDY!

Eastbourne people cannot bear

Nice Salvation bands on Sunday!

Acts, not words, again we need,

Just to show them they are silly.

Sunday Music stopped? Indeed,

They must like it, willy nilly!

(Punch, April 9th, 1892)

4 Responses to “Expanded name”

  1. McKiernan Says:

    Thank you, TS,

    The new name is certainly acceptable, although a prior plea some many comments back lobbied for the word ‘new’ in the title. Not to worry.

    It would appear that you’ve finally recognized the HIV∫AIDS puppy was a one-trick dog all this time.
    Even anonymous in the Moore bombs thread asks the pertinent question which has long been hammered to smithereens, internet-wise.

    Hopefully, TS, never again will it be necessary to fall back on first -∫- principle stated on page 61, of the somewhat incomplete, Onco∫ book—paraphrased slightly as—well they’re all wrong because well, we said so, or something like that.

    Good luck on the new adventure.

    McK

  2. McKiernan Says:

    By the way, I love your adjectival phrase, “Defending science … flowing through modern systems”

    It will go a long way with no sentence, no period and no verbs

    McK

  3. McKiernan Says:

    Oh, Dear,

    Now I lay me down with sheep,

    I pray to cod my sole to keep,

    If I shud die afore I wake,

    Please, don’t make me cod-fish cake.

  4. Truthseeker Says:

    You did not recognize the blog as the subject of the sentence, and “defending” as the verb, McK? Perhaps a moment’s inattention between glasses of the rich bounty of the Scots talent for preparing distilled liquors of the celestial kind?

    “New” may be added at some later stage, just as “Ethical” may be removed once again, if such Comments as your’n can be deciphered and prove to go against it, rather than for it, which is as yet unknown since our Enigma machine is currently balking. The exact meaning and relevance of the remainder of Comment 1 and also Comment 3 also remain to be elucidated therefore, unless you can kindly rephrase them with English sentences of the kind that we were used to in the nursery, many thanks, sorry to be a bother.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 292 access attempts in the last 7 days.