Panspermia: Socio-Economic Control of Scientific Paradigm

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Phorce
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce
Contact:

Panspermia: Socio-Economic Control of Scientific Paradigm

Unread post by Phorce » Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:25 am

Image

N Chandra Wickramasinghe, Tokoro G (2014) Life as a Cosmic Phenomenon: The Socio-Economic Control of a Scientific Paradigm. Astrobiol Outreach 2:113. doi: 10.4172/2332-2519.1000113

Wickramasinghe, a student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle, is well known in in-the-know scientific circles for his research and discoveries into Panspermia. In this paper as well as directly criticising the problems of "accepted science" that EU advocates know so well, he and his co-author summarise, very well I think, the evidence for Panspermia. It's so ironic in our world of purported "UFO contact" and SETI searches that we are regularly being visited by extraterrestrial life - however small that life might be in terms of bacteria and other microscopic lifeforms.

In the following quotes I have highlighted parts directly relevant to EU.
If a jury comprised of 12 impartial men and women were presented
with the full range of evidence on the existence of extraterrestrial
life, and the cosmic origins of life, there is scarcely any doubt that the
verdict will be positive. So overwhelming is the totality of the evidence
we have discussed. Ingress of extraterrestrial life to the Earth would
appear to have been established beyond a shadow of doubt. The fact
that this conclusion is not widely known or publicised is in the authors’
view entirely a function of state control of scientific paradigms, of a
kind reminiscent of the behaviour of totalitarian political regimes. [there are good psychological reasons for this, see my post]
Refusal to conform with the strictures of authority is met with serious
consequences that are particularly damaging for young scientists at
the start of their careers in science. For them the award of grants to
support their work, approbation by peers, or even their very livelihood
is threatened
.
As in the sphere of
politics change ultimately comes about as a result of social opposition
and protest, and public opinion eventually triumphs. From the earliest
times primitive man appears to have had an innate perception of a
connection between life and some major aspect of the Universe. The fact
that most primitive gods and goddesses being invariably placed in the
skies was itself an expression of this link.
With the dawn of civilization
more explicit expressions of a belief in alien life gradually came to the
fore. Giordino Bruno’s famous assertions on alien life that led to his
death in 1600 are well known, and similar assertions have punctuated
history. The modern interest in aliens expressed in science fiction can
generally be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgement of alien life,
and furthermore of our own intimate connection with it.
It is a curious fact that whilst SiFi movies portraying alien life
make box office hits, the vast body technical data on alien life such as
we have accumulated in recent years, and discussed in this article, are
scarcely known to the public at large. This is not due to any weakness
or inadequacy of the evidence itself, but due to the fact that prominent
science journals that enjoy media exposure deliberately act as censors
of “unacceptable” science.
In such a situation no discoveries get to be
published except those that are considered pleasing to an academic
orthodoxy. We thus have a situation of total and absolute control of
information in science and this is surely to be regretted.
I think N Chandra Wickramasinghe and Tokoro G have done science a service by highlighting the control of information here in relation to such a remarkable phenomenon as Panspermia that has such extraordinary, high quality evidence in its favour. As always, despite the difficulties faced by those working in areas of "unacceptable science" its the quality of the evidence, despite the difficulties, that will eventually win through.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests