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.

Naples conference speakers find merit in scientific heresies

This week (Thur Oct 20-Sat Oct 22) sees the third Science and Democracy Conference in Naples. The unique biannual meeting examines worthy current paradigm challenges in science, typically concluding that evidence has not been objectively assessed by the powers that be.

The conferences are organized by Marco Mamone Capria, a mathematician and physicist from Perugia who believes that the Kuhnian process, whereby paradigms are toppled in science only after their replacements are tested by strong resistance, has become distorted under modern conditions, with political and economic power playing undeserved roles.

Contributors of papers to this round of talks held in the Palazzo Serra Di Cassano, the home of the scholarly Institute of Philosophical Studies, under whose auspices the conferences are held, include Henry H. Bauer, the professor emeritus of chemistry at Virgina Polytechnic Institute and author of Scientific Literacy and the Myth of Scientific Method (1992), and Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena and other Heterodoxies (2001). Bauer is the editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

But the most noteworthy aspect of the remarkable collection of papers already available on the site is the inclusion of nine key titles by Serge Lang, the recently deceased Yale mathematician who was the leading fighter for truth and accuracy in AIDS science after Peter Duesberg of Berkeley, and whose loss has been felt deeply by that movement.

One of the papers is THE PNAS “HIV/AIDS” FILE which details the disgraceful episode this year where Lang’s paper on the sorry state of HIV?AIDS statistics was refused in a curt note by the editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, as noted earlier in this blog.

(See Yale’s Serge Lang, a firebrand of idealism, is lost to the academy and to science: ‘Predictably the PNAS Editor in chief, Nick Cozzarelli, after sniffing the political wind, curtly rejected the articles as unsuitable, stating the transparently false excuse that they were “opinion pieces” and not “research articles”, according to “experts on the PNAS board” that he had consulted. The insulting brevity of the letter, and its lack of grace, suggest to us that Nick Cozzarelli was seriously afraid of providing any opportunity whatsoever for Lang to engage him in dialogue:

“Dear Dr Lang:

I have consulted with experts on the PNAS Editorial Board and we cannot accept either of your articles for consideration in the journal. Neither of them are research articles. They are instead opinion pieces.”

Sincerely,

Nick Cozzarelli)

Here is what Strohman wrote to go with Lang’s PNAS submission:


Objections to the orthodox position stem from several types of people, including scientists who bring up contradictions between the orthodox position and empirical data; and journalists, who report existing contradictions from within the establishment and horrible consequences of medical misjudgment. My reading of the exchange between the critics and those representing the orthodoxy is that our establishment people are responding to valid criticism with an unabashed new-speak, a term defined as “language that is ambiguous or dogmatic, and conceals the truth”. Of course, many scientists supporting the orthdox position simply have stopped reading the data, and their newspeak is simply rooted in ignorance. It is essential that the documented challenge to a question of world wide importance be removed from the margins of discourse and be brought to the mainstream. There is no better place to start than with publication in PNAS.

…In my opinion the two papers submitted by Professor Lang constitute an excellent basis for reexamination of the standard theory of what is called “HIV/AIDS”, because they contain substantial and extensive empirical evidence for the failures of this theoretical construct.

The slighting manner in which this opinion was ignored and Lang’s contribution rejected is in our view a classic example of the pygmy stature of those who stand in the way of subjecting HIV?AIDS to rigorous scientific review.

The disrespect shown to two members of the National Academy of Sciences by the editor of their own journal, which traditionally carries such seconded contributions without further review, is surely a sign of how badly the core ideals of their once august society are being corrupted by the newly low standards of scientific discourse epitomised by AIDS scientists in this paradigm dispute, the very standards which are complained about by Lang.

(show)

Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, Napoli

Convegno internazionale/International Conference

SCIENZA E DEMOCRAZIA – SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY

Napoli, 20-22 ottobre 2005

Comitato promotore/Promoting Committee

S. Dumontet, A. Gargano, M. Mamone Capria

Segreteria/Secretariat:

M. Mamone Capria, Dipartimento di Matematica – Università – 06123 Perugia

Tel.: 39.75.5855006 – Fax: 39.75.5855024 – E-mail: mamone@dipmat.unipg.it

Sito del convegno/Web Site: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~mamone/sci-dem

Orario delle relazioni

I giornata (giovedì 20 ottobre)

MATTINO/MORNING

9.30-10: Apertura del convegno/Opening of the Conference

10-10.45: J. Barretto Bastos Filho, “Dirimere conflitti e il complesso problema del relativismo culturale”

10.45-11: Discussione

11-11.45: M. Mamone Capria, “Sintesi dei contributi inviati/ An Outline of the Written Contributions”

11.45-12: Discussione

12-12.45: A. Giuliani, “Il prodotto degli scienziati”

12.45-13: Discussione

13-13.30: Discussione generale

POMERIGGIO/AFTERNOON

15.30-16.15: M. Mamone Capria, “Serge Lang’s last file and the suppression of dissent in contemporary science”

16.15-16.30: Discussione

16.30-17.15: M. Walker, “Brave New World of zero risk: covert strategy in British science policy”

17.15-17.30: Discussione

17.30-18.15: M. Tibon-Cornillot, “Déferlement des techniques contemporaines: instabilité et disparition des sociétés industrielles”

18.15-18.30: Discussione

18.30-19.15: A. Baracca. “Cuba, caso unico di sviluppo di un sistema scientifico in un paese sottosviluppato”

19.15-19.30: Discussione

II giornata (venerdì 21 ottobre)

MATTINO/MORNING

9.30-10.15: M. C. Danhoni Neves, “Transgenici alla brasiliana, o come la Monsanto e l’industria del transgenico colonizzò l’agricoltura brasiliana”

10.15-10.30: Discussione

10.30-11.15: J-P Berlan, “Science, democracy and property rights on life”

11.15-11.30: Discussione

11.30-12.15: P. Mwale, “Public debates and societal deliberations: the case of the Zambian national consultation on GM maize food aid in 2002”

12.15-12.30: Discussione

12.30-13: Discussione generale

POMERIGGIO/AFTERNOON

15.30-16: L. Margottini, “Farmaci, ricerca, industria: quale tutela per il cittadino?”

16-16.10: Discussione

16.10-16.55: P. Doshi, “Sound science? Consistent messages?”

16.55-17.10: Discussione

17.10-17.40: P. Capitanucci, “Medicina dotta e medicina popolare agli albori della scienza”

17.40-17.50: Discussione

17.50-18.35: M. Walker, “The ghost lobby and other mysteries of modern medicine. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and New Labour”

18.35-18.50: Discussione

18.50-19.20: Giovanna Silvestri, “I disturbi dello spettro autistico: il dibattito sulle cause”

19.20-19.30: Discussione

III giornata (sabato 22 ottobre)

MATTINO/MORNING

9.30-10.15: R. Germano, “Moti ionici ‘impossibili’, ovvero sugli effetti biologici dei campi elettromagnetici”

10-10.10: Discussione

10.10-10.40: Testimonianza di un comitato cittadino sull’elettrosmog

10.40-10.50: Discussione

10.50-11.35: M. C. Danhoni Neves, “The enigma of Sobral: Einstein’s later annus mirabilis in Brasil”.

11.35-11.50: Discussione

11.50-12.35: A. Baracca, “Fisica fondamentale, ricerca e realizzazione di nuove armi nucleari”

12.35-12.50: Discussione

12.50-13.30: Discussione generale e chiusura del convegno

One Response to “Naples conference speakers find merit in scientific heresies”

  1. Robert Houston Says:

    Those who might have missed this conference in Naples may be interested in knowing that Dr. Henry Bauer, who is mentioned above as a participant, has released a trio of papers on why HIV is not the cause of AIDS. At least one of these is scheduled to appear in the December issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Preprints are available on line at: hivnotaids.homestead.com.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 302 access attempts in the last 7 days.