In science, and to a lesser expert in other disciplines, it is useful to make predictions.
In 2012, I wrote to 38 Engineering students in Trinity College, Cambridge, the most scientific college in Cambridge. This is what I wrote; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/wxyz.pdf . As I predicted, none of the students responded in any way. I made that prediction in 1996. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm ; “Those students who studied, learned, and passed exams in the IEE's [or a school or college’s] static knowledge base developed subject loyalty and also a vested interest in its maintenance and defence against new knowledge.”
Before the article called "The Wakefield Experiment" was published in April 2013, I predicted that no relevant professor would make any comment whatsoever. Further, I predicted that no journalist would touch the subject. I am assembling my approach to professors and journalists here .
As to Sociology of Science, Philosophy of Science, History of Science, none of those professionally active in any of those fields today will absorb the significance of this experiment.
Ivor Catt 27 March 2012
What is interesting is that we will find that as well as professional scientists and science journalists, those who practice Sociology of Science, Philosophy of Science, History of Science, do not believe in the possibility of Paradigm Shift . "The Wakefield Experiment" only hints at Paradigm Shift , but that is enough to rule it out of court among professionals. The last paradigm shifts were phlogiston and caloric , 200 years ago. A professional needs to believe that he is looking at crank science, and his reputation must not be sullied by getting involved in it. He knows that the likelihood of another paradigm shift is minimal. He only has to read the title of "The Wakefield Experiment" . "Scientists move in tight formation" . This includes their fellow-travellers.
We should be able to develop the idea of Whig History , and find that today professionals limit themselves to Whig Sociology of Science, Whig Philosophy of Science, and Whig History of Science. Since they know T S Kuhn , this must be particularly difficult for the Sociologists of Science. They must believe that Kuhn only relates to past science.
Ivor Catt 27 March 2013 bis.