Saturday, January 18, 2014

Pierre-Marie Robitaille and the Establishment's Conditioning Program

I have been finding lots of great dissident material. Apparently science is much more lost than I thought.

Here are Mr. Robitaille's works on

It is suggested to the reader to pay attention to both his writings, and the people who think he is a "crank". This is called critical thinking and is a lost skill in establishment science. The students are trained rats. Here is a good excerpt from the thunderbolts project forum:

About half way down.

""Tom Van Flandern commented to us:

I have taken aside several colleagues whose pet theories are now mainstream doctrine, and asked quizzically what it would mean to them personally if an alternative idea ultimately prevailed. To my initial shock (I was naïve enough that I did not see this coming), to a person, the individuals I asked said they would leave the field and do something else for a living. Their egos, the adulation they enjoy, and the satisfaction that they were doing something important with their lives, would be threatened by such a development. As I pondered this, it struck me that their vested interests ran even deeper than if they just had a financial stake in the outcome (which, of course, they do because of grants and promotions). So a challenger with a replacement idea would be naïve to see the process as anything less than threatening the careers of some now-very-important people, who cannot be expected to welcome that development regardless of its merit." (1 August 2002)

What a find! This is exactly the type of stuff we need to be collecting in this thread. The pieces to this puzzle are mostly already out there. They are simply spread out, and we oftentimes have to use analogy or metaphor to "see" them. But, in this case, we are given a window into the psyche of the professional scientist, and what we see reveals a divergence between thinking like a scientist and the culture which dominates professional science today. I don't want to suggest that Jeff Schmidt's work is the only rubric available for deconstructing scientific culture, but his book, Disciplined Minds, suggests an explanation: The decision to train scientists to fit into large organizations involves creating a culture which refuses to question assumptions. By having students memorize stacks of problem sets littered with algebraic tricks, the point is to train graduate students to avoid questioning the assumptions inherent to their parent organization. This parent organization starts out as the physics discipline itself, and then, if they happen to go into industry, that mindset is redirected towards inviting them to adopt the framework of whatever organization they end up in.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.