The Decline of Science.

Dear Sarah Knapton,

re your Telegraph article on 20 October, p5. "Birds' beaks are longer thanks to our garden feeders."

I make two points.

The narrower point I make to you is that the information given to you is statistically trivial.

Scientists exaggerate claims in order to ensure further research funding. The article is full of items straight out of Professor Bruce Charlton's book "Not even trying; The Corruption of real science", which is on the www,

For instance, from your article; ".... .... it is reasonable to suggest that the longer beaks amongst British great tits may have evolved as a response to this supplementary feeding." The longer length of British Tits, "up to 0.3mm", is obviously statistically insignificant. They suggest that this results from the British " .... putting out food for garden birds." Such a small statistically insignificant change could be correlated with many changes

 

On the second point, I have some very interesting information for the Telegraph reader, but information which is outside today's science canon, or dogma. Generally, the media are trapped within the canon, but the first journalist who steps outside the canon, although taking a risk, might gain very great rewards.

 

My friend Neville Hodgkinson in "The Sunday Times", stepped outside the canon on AIDS, and suffered greatly as a result. However, in his autobiography the then editor, Andrew Neil, says that his greatest achievement as editor was to publish Hodgkinson.

 

My research shows convincingly that "The Peer Review Mafia", or "Peer Review Cartel" has taken over science and its funding committees. Their “Pop Science”, or “Zombie Science”, becomes more and more absurd while they try to continue to enthuse a gullible public and political class. Currently they warn of an invasion by aliens and say we must colonise another planet in the next 30 years – Rees and Hawking, also Brian Cox and CERN.

 

It would take a lot of work for you to look into this, but the rewards for you could be very great. The Zombie Science juggernaut is bound to crash presently, but may stay in control for a decade more or even longer.

 

My work was peer review blocked for 50 years, but then was peer reviewed with comprehensive defamation and misrepresentation by the biggest independent research organisation in the world, the IEEE. All ten leaders in the field who were involved in blocking my work acted unethically, for instance breaching the Code of Ethics of their organisations. The relationship between Zombie Science and Real Science is ugly and damaging. Each side has to inflict maximum damage on the other, as Polanyi says.

Return to; “My research shows convincingly that "The Peer Review Mafia", or "Peer Review Cartel" has taken over science and its funding committees. Their “Pop Science”, or “Zombie Science”, becomes more and more absurd while they try to continue to interest a gullible public and political class.”

 

At some time in the future, one journalist will dare to broach this subject. It could be you. Obviously the public interest demands that you do so, if only to suggest that it is possibly true that careerists have captured the high peaks of science and now block major advance, which would damage their careers and reputations.

Ivor Catt

 

"The Decline of Science"

 "The Catt Question" ; 2