Whig Science and its fellow travellers.
Peer Review outlaws even the suggestion of paradigm change
No one with reputation and career fully or partly based on electromagnetic theory can comment on my article read "THE END OF THE ROAD?" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf . This is because it hints at paradigm change. It reports on the Wakefield Experiment, 2012, which purports to prove that a charged capacitor does not have a static electric field.
Anyone with career and reputation to defend knows he must not get involved with such heresy. He will almost certainly not read "THE END OF THE ROAD?" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf , but only its title. The title tells him that the article is quackery, lunatic pseudo-science.
At this point the plot thickens. We move from Whig Science to Whig journalism on science, Whig Sociology of Science, Whig Philosophy of Science, Whig History of Science.
No journalist will touch the problem that no accredited scientist will write comment on the article. All experts in the Sociology of Science will refuse to investigate this aspect of its sociology. Those who work in Philosophy of Science will ignore the non-response of accredited experts to this article. This is in spite of the fact that they are familiar with the syndrome, because they know T S Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions and even perhaps Polanyi .
As to Whig History of Science, again we see that in spite of Kuhn, historians of science will join forces to ignore the suggestion of paradigm change.
In general, those few who are expert in the new paradigm walk away from the subject. They give up “hitting their heads against a brick wall”.
This “evolved conspiracy” is complex and sophisticated. Such was needed in order for the onward march of science, so beneficial to society, to be brought to a halt. Many, many branches of our society had to join forces to bring scientific advance to a halt. Major scientific advance became an ever greater threat to all careers and reputations based on the current scientific dogma.
The Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, the self-styled most scientific college in Cambridge, Newton’s College, selected Sir Michael Pepper, knighted for services to physics, as his top expert, and instructed him to write to me about The Catt Question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . This was his reply http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm . That is, in 1993, we had the ex cathedra Party Line on The Catt Question, an elementary question about the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory. However, Nobel Prize Winner Professor Brian Josephson told me a decade or two later that Pepper had changed his mind. However, Pepper has not communicated with me since his first ex cathedra statement in 1993.
You, my reader, will immediately think that Pepper is fully entitled to fail to tell me that his 1993 statement is wrong. However, if you are willing to reflect a little on the matter, you will reverse your view. This is because you will come to realise that if false information about the fundamentals of the subject continue to be attributed to an accredited expert with impunity , that is the end, not only of scientific advance, but even of the science we already have.
The addition of new features to Establishment Science, for instance the Higgs Boson, does not threaten scientific careers. It is the removal of existing material, for instance phlogiston or caloric, which cannot be allowed in a profession, which science now is. This is the threat hinted at in the article "THE END OF THE ROAD?" . Not only scientists, but also sociologists, philosophers, historians, journalists will ignore the teachings of Kuhn when they support its suppression.
Ivor Catt 23 March 2013
Professional Science is incompatible with paradigm change.
There is a big difference between addition to the Body Scientific, and removal of part of it. Whereas the arrival of another particle can be absorbed, and text books and careers and reputations remain intact, the removal of something like Phlogiston or Caloric, in the sense of Occam or Kuhn, cannot be tolerated in a profession, because it would undermine careers, reputations and text books.