# Is mainstream science out to get fringe science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163 "2001-04-07T17:10:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/1 "2001-04-07T17:10:16Z")
In the [Atkins Diet](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64271) thread here in Great Debates, **AnotherHeretic** took the thread on a little tangent dealing with the ways in which, he asserts, mainstream scientists denigrate and unfairly attack any scientists that don’t toe their line. I figured this discussion merited a thread of its own, which is why I’m starting this thread here. I’ll start by recapping what was said near the end of the Atkins Diet thread. **AnotherHeretic** wrote: > [@](#): > > Since you brought him up unnecessarily, I will reply. You can stick with mainstream science. But in 1950, as far as mainstream science was concernced, catastrophism was a ridiculous lunacy. Venus was frozen. No radio noises on Jupiter. Velikovsky said the opposite. > > Today, in the above cases, mainstream science agrees with what Velikovsky said in 1950. > > Of course you will make up all kinds of excuses and reasons that he came up with his ideas in an illogical fashion, but Velikovsky saw that mainstream science’s idea that the world is very ordered and uniform and that planets could not collide was wrong. He took evidence from history to prove his theory. > > You dispute his methods and disagree with most everything he said. But you don’t do it with respect. Of course he is a heretic and couldn’t present his radical ideas to mainstream science. They would have never accepted it for publication. He had to take his case outside the establishment. If the establishment science were so good, then why were mathematical PROOFS that heavier than air flight was impossible published by a physicist while the wright brothers couldn’t get journalists to SEE with their own eyes their physical plane taking off. Like it or not, radical ideas are not evaluated objectively by mainstream science. Some of it is bunk but some isn’t. > > Although his theory was ridiculous on the face of it in 1950, the fact is in '94 at least 21 objects from a comet hit jupiter > > [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9\_home.gif](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9_home.gif) > > You guys don’t want to give him any credit for anything but you had to redo your theories to deal with catastrophism. I have my doubts that this would have been done so fast if there wasn’t Velikovsky’s popularity and thorough research spurring you on…I’m not saying I agree with everything he said, but there’s an awful lot to learn from reading his work and he did some great work. But you need to read it with an open mind. Many of his detractors didn’t even read his books. > > BTW, did you actually read any of his books? Did you read Sagan’s critique? What did you think of it? > > Read the dialogue between Einstein and Velikovsky now on the web at [http://www.varchive.com](http://www.varchive.com) > > Einstein said the scientists make a mistake not to study Velikovsky and you guys don’t even respect your own master enough to grant him that. Einstein read Ages in Chaos three times and was in the middle of that book on his desk when he died. There’s a lot more but, I don’t want to hijack this thread. I just didn’t like leaving your swipe on him unchallenged either. If you actually do research, there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye. AnotherHeretic’s mention of a “proof” claiming that heavier-than-air flight was impossible piqued my curiosity. I poked around a little and found an article about the subject. Here is what I, **tracer** , wrote in reply: > [@](#): > > Ah, I think I’ve found what you’re referring to: > > [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p155y1977-78.pdf](http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p155y1977-78.pdf) [Note: this is a .pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat to read.] > > The physicist’s name was Simon Newcomb, and he did indeed write in October 1903 (2 months before the Wright Flyer first took off from Kitty Hawk) that heavier-than-air flight was probably impossible. And, yes, the Wright Brothers were not taken seriously for several years. > > But keep in mind that in 1903, Samuel Pierpont Langley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, used a $50,000 War Department grant to build a flying machine, which **failed**. Miserably. This attempt at heavier-than-air flight **was** taken seriously by the press and the scientific community even before it failed, and when it did fail – twice – it turned public and scientific opinion strongly against the whole concept of heavier-than-air flight. Simon Newcomb, and newspapers including the New York Times, got to shrug their shoulders and say, “I told you so.” It was in that climate, a mere **nine days** after Langley’s second failure, that the Wright Brothers made their claim of a 12-second heavier-than-air flight. Wouldn’t **you** be skeptical, too? > > Incidentally, the Wright Brothers weren’t scientific heretics. They used oodles of mainstream science, plus their own engineering research, in the construction of Flyer 1. They even began their research by asking the Smithsonian Institution – Langley’s bailiwick – for a literature search on the subject of flying. **AnotherHeretic** replied: > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t I be skeptical? I’m skeptical of everything until I see proof. But I’m not fickle. If you work on the bleeding edge of science and a project fails that doesn’t mean the task is impossible and it’s silly to ignore it just because it failed in the past. This is just an excuse for an egregious error. You have loads of eyewitness reports that the plane flew. So you’re skeptical, fine. But send someone to check it out. There it was concrete proof and you’re defending the mainstream for not publishing it for years. In science you admit your mistake and move on. Why can’t you admit that there was no justification for a several year delay in reporting on the flight? If a so called fringe scientist made such a huge error you wouldn’t be so kind, you’d jump down their throat. > > Imagine groundbreaking work that is more subtle, requires more effort to prove. The Genetic code took a lot of money and effort to get where we are today. If it was unpopular, then it would have got nowhere. > > Anyway, this is not the type of dispute that will go anywhere. It’s a great debate that’s off topic. I’ve met people personally who have been castigated for their work which was unpopular. They are scientific mainstream people who realized the mainstream was wrong and as soon as they stopped toeing the line, they were outcast. Like the Wright brothers were for a few years, they aren’t even heretics on purpose. And I know a lot of mainstream people who think these so-called heretics are wacko because their professors told them so and they can’t believe there’s politics in science. But there is. I will never convince you, but meeting some of these people, maybe then you would change your mind, but probably not. What can I say but thank you for giving me the reference and let’s move on. I asked AnotherHeretic if he’d like to start a new thread on this topic, and **AnotherHeretic** replied: > [@](#): > > One of these days, sure. But I’m in a transition phase now with a lot of new things in my life, including this low carb diet which sucks the energy out of you. Plus I’m not at home and my library is in storage. Inevitably we’ll get into an argument where I’ll get frustrated and be unable to pull out any books to defend my side of it. > > But I guess you’re a regular here and I’m sure we’ll start many debates 🙂 > > I know a fair number of brilliant scientists but with a closed mind. Their professor tells them “It is an established scientific fact” and their curiosity ends there. I guess my father instilled in me that the above statement is an opportunity to learn more about science. > > No, it is not an established scientific fact. A human came up with it at a particular time and perhaps it explained facts as they were known then. But with recent scientific knowledge, these theories may need to be revisited. I like to know the history of that established fact, who came up with it, why, what did his contemporaries have to say about it, and then do a thought experiment about how that person would have formulated the thoery with the benefit of recent knowledge. > > But there’s so much money, ego, politics involved that the environment is not always right to challenge it any more than dvorak’s superior keyboard could challenge the qwerty keyboard today. > > You know about variable stars. But you don’t know about Harlow Shapley’s shameful role in delaying it’s discovery. THAT isn’t taught in science textbooks or put on the wall of the new Griffith Observatory in NY. Shapley is remembered there and in science textbooks, but from what I’ve seen of him he was a jerk with power. There are plenty like him around today. > > My dad remembers when the big bang came to be and the redshift theories as measure of distance were proposed. The environment was different then and George Gamow was the savior of the Big Bang. He had new discoveries contradicting the theory that he had to talk his way out of almost daily. > > Now there’s Dark Matter. Missing Matter. If you have an open mind, it’s fun to watch Chandra’s discoveries and NASA’s spin on it. But if you care to surf the net and look at alternative ideas, you may view the pr in a different light. > > To today’s students redshift as distance and the Big Bang is gospel like the bible is to religious folk. But mark my words, the theory will fall. Two mainstream sciences are going against each other and only one will win. Talk to plasma physicists and decide for yourself. Arp from the inside of the Halls of Astronomy coupled with the Plasma Physicists on their side will beat out the mainstream astronomers eventually. And the same people casting Arp aside today will hail him as a hero in a couple of decades. And no one will remember what hell he was put through in the meantime…He’s a formerly respected mainstream scientist who fell out of favor. When he falls back in, mainstream science will proclaim how wonderful it is because it corrects itself. Even though today Arp can’t get published by a decent publisher, he is “lucky” because he will have his day (even though that will probably only be after he’s gone since he’s not a young man anymore). > > But HONEST scientists in many many fields are being cast aside all the time because they will not toe the line…It costs them monetarily and their excellent work will NEVER see the light of day. > > I can’t prove this all, so it’s frustrating for me. But I see the world differently than you and I seek out unconventional information because there are great discoveries to be found there… And that’s where the discussion now stands. So, teeming millions, is the treatment fringe scientists receive really this unfair? Are we losing many potentially great discoveries because we don’t want to shake the scientific status quo? ---
**Author:** ![berdollos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@berdollos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/berdollos)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/2 "2001-04-07T17:17:26Z")
a related question and on that might deserve its own thread is, “which current fringe theories will be proven true in the future?” I, for one, think that the idea of healing energies that can be transmitted from a person to others will be proven true, probably in the next 20 years. Also the auric field will be scientifically measured. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/3 "2001-04-07T17:34:36Z")
I’m sorry, Tracer, but where in all that did you mention “fringe scientists”? A fringe scientist is one who fails to base his theories on documented observations and repeatable experiments. Yhe examples you brought were simply of nonconformists. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/4 "2001-04-07T17:40:37Z")
**berdollos** wrote: > [@](#): > > I, for one, think that the idea of healing energies that can be transmitted from a person to others will be proven true, probably in the next 20 years. Also the auric field will be scientifically measured. Oh good gravy, please tell me you’re kidding. Reich thought he’d discovered such a thing back in the late 1930s, and he was deluded. Kirlian photography buffs are likewise convinced that they’re seeing living creatures’ auras, when in fact inanimate inorganic objects will create the same impressions. Worse, the whole _notion_ of an “aura” got started by people who had never heard of negative afterimages. No two people who claim to be able to see the aura will, if isolated from one another, see the same color aura or give the same interpretation of a given person’s aura – and can even “see” an “aura” around a cardboard cut-out silhouette of a person if they think it’s a real person – yet they are all convinced that their visions and interpretations are 100% accurate. **AnotherHeretic** wrote: > [@](#): > > But there’s so much money, ego, politics involved that the environment is not always right to challenge it any more than dvorak’s superior keyboard could challenge the qwerty keyboard today. The notion that Dvorak’s keyboard layout is significantly superior to the standard QWERTY layout appears to be a myth, created primarily by Dvorak himself. See [http://www.reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.html](http://www.reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.html). (Note, however, that it’s a myth that I’ve personally fallen for. The keyboard I’m typing this message on right now [in my home] has a Dvorak layout. My keyboard at work has a standard QWERTY layout, and although I am familiar with and extensively use both, I don’t type any faster in one than in the other. I just haven’t got the heart to get rid of the Dvorak layout on my home system.) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/5 "2001-04-07T17:42:04Z")
Alessan wrote: > [@](#): > > A fringe scientist is one who fails to base his theories on documented observations and repeatable experiments. You mean like Velikovsky? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/6 "2001-04-07T17:48:14Z")
But you’re right, Alessan, the term “fringe science” has become well-associated with pseudoscience, and that was not what I really meant. Perhaps I should have titled this thread “Is mainstream science out to get nonconformist science?”. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/7 "2001-04-07T17:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*Alessan wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > A fringe scientist is one who fails to base his theories on documented observations and repeatable experiments. > > You mean like Velikovsky? \*\* Yep, and Arthur C. Clarke. He also had some good guesses. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/8 "2001-04-07T17:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*But you’re right, Alessan, the term “fringe science” has become well-associated with pseudoscience, and that was not what I really meant. > > Perhaps I should have titled this thread “Is mainstream science out to get nonconformist science?”. \*\* Ah, I see. I guess I was mislaid by Bordellos’s post. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/9 "2001-04-07T17:55:03Z")
Or possibly misl **e** d. ---
**Author:** ![riley\_dieffenbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@riley\_dieffenbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/riley_dieffenbach)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/10 "2001-04-07T17:55:23Z")
Fringe science is on the fringe for a reason. You can always cherry pick ideas that were once ridiculous but are now accepted scientific theory. The dustbin of history is fraught with examples though of scientific fads that are now rightly ridiculed. As one example A. Conan Doyle was quite convinced that fairies existed. Two little girls in Cottingsley UK perpetrated an addmittedly ingenious hoax that brought out a host of pseudoscientists that claimed to have proved the existence of fairies. The fairies of today range from Feng Shui to astrology to astral projection. The reason it is hard to pick an idea currently on the fringe of science that will someday become commonplace is that you are searching for a crumb in a vast sea of crap. Rigorous scientific inquiry is routinely avoided by hucksters who want people like Berdollos to spend money on therapies using “healing energies”. There is a vast industry of people and companies who profit off of this shameless hucksterism. Just take a look at what a Feng Shui consultant is making these days in CA. Yes I know I didn’t provide cites and I’ll probably get flamed for this, but what the hey. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/11 "2001-04-07T18:12:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by riley dieffenbach \* > \*\*I’ll probably get flamed for this, but what the hey. \*\* On _this_ board? Hardly. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/12 "2001-04-07T18:46:03Z")
**AnotherHeretic** wrote: > [@](#): > > Now there’s Dark Matter. Missing Matter. If you have an open mind, it’s fun to watch Chandra’s discoveries and NASA’s spin on it. But if you care to surf the net and look at alternative ideas, you may view the pr in a different light. > > To today’s students redshift as distance and the Big Bang is gospel like the bible is to religious folk. But mark my words, the theory will fall. Two mainstream sciences are going against each other and only one will win. Talk to plasma physicists and decide for yourself. Arp from the inside of the Halls of Astronomy coupled with the Plasma Physicists on their side will beat out the mainstream astronomers eventually. And the same people casting Arp aside today will hail him as a hero in a couple of decades. And no one will remember what hell he was put through in the meantime…He’s a formerly respected mainstream scientist who fell out of favor. When he falls back in, mainstream science will proclaim how wonderful it is because it corrects itself. Even though today Arp can’t get published by a decent publisher, he is “lucky” because he will have his day (even though that will probably only be after he’s gone since he’s not a young man anymore). The “Plasma Universe” model that Arp supports was originally proposed by Hans Alfven, and popularized by Eric Lerner in the book _The Big Bang Never Happened_. The Plasma Universe of Alfven et al. was not attacked because it “bucked the mainstream”, it was attacked because it had serious errors, and made more erroneous predictions than the Big Bang model(s) did. See [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner\_errors.html](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html). Incidentally, the “missing mass” and “dark matter” were predicted long before the Big Bang hypotheses called for their existence. The rotation curves of galaxies, using completely standard Newtonian/Keplerian models that have been used successfully for centuries, indicate that the masses of galaxies are several times the mass we can “see” in the form of stars and other “bright” matter. A cosmological model that does **not** predict the existence of “missing mass” would thus contradict our observations! ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/13 "2001-04-07T19:01:10Z")
Alright guys, those who are picking on Velikovsky, have you read his books? Have you read “Before the Day Breaks” which is his encounters with Einstein over on [http://www.varchive.com](http://www.varchive.com) Einstein asked Velikovsky to make a prediction on which his entire theory hinges. He said he’ll rest his entire thoery on Radio Noises being found on Jupiter. Some 13 days before Einstein died, they of course found Radio Noises on Jupiter. You mainstreamers have come up with excuses that there was no logical reason for his prediction. Convenient for you isn’t it? Einstein was going to help Velikovsky after his prediction came true. But he died in the meantime. Helen Dukas, Einstein’s secretary confirmed it after his death. You call this cherry picking? You are OBVIOUSLY biased but you don’t see it and never will. Einstein was no fool. He gave serious thought to Velikovsky and there is much to learn from him and Einstein said the Astronomers were wrong for not studying him. Be a good student and listen to your favorite teacher. You may learn something. Or maybe Einstein who learned something from Velikovsky was not smart enough like you are to see through after several readings what you can tell by probably reading only ONE of Velikovsky’s books… But I don’t believe that any astronomer who went through astronomy classes will be able to look at it objectively any more than people some time ago were ready to hear that the Earth was round. I keep wanting to stay out of this because I know how it will end anyway but I can’t keep from writing 🙂 Velikovsky had a great point when he said that Newton’s gravity came about without Newton having the benefit of a lightbulb. That was a brilliant observation. Even if the qwerty vs. dvorak thing turns out to be wrong (thanks for the ref. Is it true that the qwerty came out to slow down typing so the hammers wouldn’t jam each other or is that fake too? I can’t believe qwerty is the best design because I find it counter-intuitive even though I type pretty dam fast), the power of inertia is strong. If you put yourself in Newton’s shoes and add electricity to Newton’s repretoire of explanations for “gravity”, you have to assume that he would have incorporated electricity into the scheme. Astronomers believe that the planetary motions are almost completely electrically inert. And they do have a good reason for it. But speak to some plasma physicists and they may show you a different view which supports Velikovsky’s ideas which may look ridiculous when you have ingrained astronomical scientific “knowledge” giving you a bias. Einstein too, at first, (at second actually because they had met long earlier and collaborated on something), thought that Velikovsky was a charlatan. After speaking with V. you can see that he changed his tone over time. Astronomers assumed that Velikovsky did not understand what he was criticising, but he wouldn’t have laster more than 10 minutes in conversation with Einstein if that were true. He did understand it very well and made some brilliant observations. I’m not saying that Velikovsky was right about everything. He boldly touched on so many fields he was bound to make many mistakes which he did, but mistakes notwithstanding there is much to learn in his works to this day and it is too easy and indeed unfair to brand him as a charlatan or a nonserious researcher. I personally enjoy reading Daniken or Sitchin. It’s fun. But I don’t think they actually believe half of what they write. I think they’re smart people but they want to make money. And they present some interesting things that you can learn from if you check the sources independently and ignore their “interpretation”. But Velikovsky is on a whole other level and should not be compared to Daniken and Sitchin like many mainstreamers do. And catastrophism was in many ways the basis of a lot of his work and is neither cherry picking nor luck no matter what you say. Only a mainstreamer would have the guts to claim when he’s wrong and someone else is right that the person that was right you’re “cherry picking” a positive result and the mainstreamer who was wrong? Oh, well guess what? Mainstream was WAY OFF. Admit you’re wrong and move on. THAT will never happen and this thread is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/14 "2001-04-07T19:01:40Z")
How about this: we could say that there exisit 2 classes ‘fringe scientists’ and ‘non-conformist scientists’. THe fringe scientists are the ones working with out reason or method who push totally unsupported ideas and who make very little sense. The ‘fringe scientist’ is an intelligent preson who is exploring a directoin that the mainstream scientific community considers to be probably fruitless, but who uses solid methodology. I do think that the interaction bewtween these two very different types causes all sorts of problems: 1. It can be very diffucult to tell the two classes apart, esp. for a layman. If oyu are an expert in a field you know if someone is a crackpot, but it may be diffucult to explain to Johnny-on-the-Street without pputting him through at least a few years of university science. 2. The romantic image of the “non-conformist scientist” (When these guys realy are sucessful, it tends to be impressive) bleeds over into “fringe science” and can be milked for credibility. We can call this the “Galelio Syndrom” 3. Fear of being associated with the “fringe scientists” causes mainstram scientists to also be very hesisitant to listen to non-conformist scientists. A good example of this would be the debate over man’s arrival in the New World. For years the othodox position was that man arrived 14,000 years ago via the bering land bridge and that there was no other contact until the Vikings (briefly) landed and then none again until Columbus came. For years, you couldn’t even **talk** about other possibilities becasue if you did the Atlantis-exile, Alien-influence crowd would jump on you and clain you as a ‘supporter’ of thier theisis and that was just insufferable. It took an incredibly anal 20 year excavation before a reputable scientist was able to feel secure enough to come forward and clain that the Americas had been settled earlier than 14,000 ybp. There is no doubt in my mind htat te standard of proof for this claim was higher because ohf the pressure from fringe science. All in all, I think we need both othodox and non-conformist scientists–we need people working on the obvious possibilities, becasue over all they are the most productive. We also need people working on the unusual (and we do have people like this–it’s not like we are rounding them up and burning them. Often, we give them nice jobs at think tanks and plenty of toys)because science does seem to often advance on the periphery. And perhaps what we need most of all is good science education in the schools so that people can tell the difference between a serious, non-tradidtional thinker and a quack. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/15 "2001-04-07T19:14:20Z")
> [@](#): > > The “Plasma Universe” model that Arp supports was originally proposed by Hans Alfven, and popularized by Eric Lerner in the book _The Big Bang Never Happened_. The Plasma Universe of Alfven et al. was not attacked because it “bucked the mainstream”, it was attacked because it had serious errors, and made more erroneous predictions than the Big Bang model(s) did. See [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner\_errors.html](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html). Thanks for the ref. I wouldn’t say that Arp supports (meaing personally) the Plasma Universe. Arp is a mainstreamer through and through. He is a reluctant heretic. He just did his job every day and one day he woke up, called it like he saw it and turned into a heretic. You’re right about Alfven but I thought it was Hannes rather than Hans? I’ll look at lerner\_errors, but did Lerner admit these errors? These kind of things can usually go both ways. I wouldn’t even say that I understand plasma physcis and don’t base my belief that the Big Bang will die on that. Although it may survive in some form I just think we are making too big a leap to presume how the Universe started. That we see the edges of the Universe. There is way too much we don’t understand. And I think Arp’s evidence is compelling and even if it’s disagreed with, why can’t the mainstream astronomical publications allow his pictures to be published? Give him access to a telescope? As Hubble’s assistant and some well accepted work and objects named after him, doesn’t he have enough credit with you guys to get published? Peer review in action. He can get published but only by writing things that toe the line. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the “missing mass” and “dark matter” were predicted long before the Big Bang hypotheses called for their existence. The rotation curves of galaxies, using completely standard Newtonian/Keplerian models that have been used successfully for centuries, indicate that the masses of galaxies are several times the mass we can “see” in the form of stars and other “bright” matter. A cosmological model that does **not** predict the existence of “missing mass” would thus contradict our observations! I’ve seen some other spins on this but I don’t want to get into it and I’ll just concede your point on this. BTW, I found it interesting that none of the mainstreamers even commented on the Harlow Shapley thing. That’s a perfect example of misuse of power, inertia of current accepted scientific fact etc… You folks won’t concede a single point like I will? Scientific American had an excuse on the Wright Brothers that’s acceptable to you? You don’t see ANY misuse of power, or unwillingness to look at new ideas? You don’t see how these 2 examples might hide something rampant in science? You have rose colored glasses on… ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/16 "2001-04-07T19:19:25Z")
AnotherHeretic wrote: > [@](#): > > Alright guys, those who are picking on Velikovsky, have you read his books? Have you read “Before the Day Breaks” which is his encounters with Einstein over on [http://www.varchive.com](http://www.varchive.com) That link takes me to a webpage that says “This .com domain name is available”. > [@](#): > > Einstein asked Velikovsky to make a prediction on which his entire theory hinges. He said he’ll rest his entire thoery on Radio Noises being found on Jupiter. Some 13 days before Einstein died, they of course found Radio Noises on Jupiter. You mainstreamers have come up with excuses that there was no logical reason for his prediction. Convenient for you isn’t it? Since the link to the website above doesn’t work, can you tell me which part of Velikovsky’s theories predicts the existence of radio noise coming from Jupiter? And were there “mainstream” theories at the time that also predicted Jovian radio noise, which Velikovsky may have been aware of and used – consciously or unconsciously – as the “real” basis for his prediction? > [@](#): > > Einstein was going to help Velikovsky after his prediction came true. But he died in the meantime. Helen Dukas, Einstein’s secretary confirmed it after his death. You call this cherry picking? You are OBVIOUSLY biased but you don’t see it and never will. Whoa – are you implying that the **only** record of Velikovsky having told Einstein that Jupiter would produce radio noise is a verbal confirmation by the late Einstein’s secretary **after the fact?!** If that’s the case, then it’s no wonder this “prediction” hasn’t been taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community – it may not have been a prediction at all. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/17 "2001-04-07T19:23:17Z")
Manda, Nice post. It is worthwhile to differentiate the two, but I’d like to add that “scientific method”, what does that mean? Is there a God-given (heh heh) scientific method? Is there ONE man-made scientific method? Is the scientific method “improvable” upon? Reading Velikovsky, it’s clear to me that more can be added to scientific method. My point above of Newton not having a light bulb (and V provides other interesting observations very similarly) points to a whole field of science that can be undertaken. There are books written on the history of science. They will typically list the great discoveries and who made them. Something Velikovsky did is to read the works of the scientists AS WELL as his contemporaries, analyze the bias of the scientist when he came up with his discovery and then try to figure out what he would have done differently with the benefit of today’s knowledge. This is a lot of work and I think merits a whole specialty which will “review” scientific discoveries in many different fields to see if we can come up with some new discoveries or amend current ones. Can a mainstreamer see value to this even though it is the “method” Velikovsky used? Or are you so clouded up just because I mentioned his name with something positive? I’m sure it has been done here and there to some extent, but not systematically. ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/18 "2001-04-07T19:34:01Z")
> [@](#): > > That link takes me to a webpage that says “This .com domain name is available”. Oops. I think it’s [http://www.varchive.org](http://www.varchive.org) > [@](#): > > Since the link to the website above doesn’t work, can you tell me which part of Velikovsky’s theories predicts the existence of radio noise coming from Jupiter? Check the new link. V. wrote many books, which one did you read? > [@](#): > > And were there “mainstream” theories at the time that also predicted Jovian radio noise, which Velikovsky may have been aware of and used – consciously or unconsciously – as the “real” basis for his prediction? Not that I know of…are you implying that he “stole” the prediction? The guy staked everything on one prediction, if you actually read enough of his work you would see clearly that the prediction follows his celestial mechanics, he didn’t steal it at all, why can’t give him the benefit of the doubt until you read up on it? Just because he’s unconventional? > [@](#): > > Whoa – are you implying that the **only** record of Velikovsky having told Einstein that Jupiter would produce radio noise is a verbal confirmation by the late Einstein’s secretary **after the fact?!** If that’s the case, then it’s no wonder this “prediction” hasn’t been taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community – it may not have been a prediction at all. Nope, Dukas confirmed that Einstein was planning to help Velikovsky get other predictions tested but died first. The prediction was made in front of a very large group of mainstream scientists, physicists etc… And is I believe on tape and is in writing. Mainstream science has not taken it seriously because they don’t take his celestial mechanics seriously. So predictions are only important when they fit your idea of the way the world works, not when they come true. V. staked his whole reputation on it, but mainstream laughed it off anyway…and I’m sure you will check out the refs and find an excuse too…but you obviously have not done much reading about Velikovsky, I can tell from your questions. Sagan did a bad job of criticising Velikovsky’s work, and his first criticisms were done OBVIOUSLY without reading the book. On the strength of that, tons of his followers felt confident enough to follow Sagan’s lead. But eventually Sagan did read it all (I believe) but he never corrected one thing…it was really shameful if you read it. I read Velikovsky, the critiques which said things like NOWHERE in V’s book does he provide evidence for XYZ in the geographical record when one of V’s books showed the answer just in the table of contents. What’s that called, hatchet job? ---
**Author:** ![AnotherHeretic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@AnotherHeretic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnotherHeretic)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/19 "2001-04-07T19:56:36Z")
Tracer, Are you a scientist btw? Assuming you are, another couple of questions for you. Let’s say thanks to my link you now do some research and shock of all shocks, you find, like Einstein to his surprise, that there is something to learn in Velikovsky. Is science open-minded enough that you can tell your colleagues about it without ridicule? Will they listen to you? Or will you become a Heretic like me? Also, take astrology. I look at it and laugh. And have done so for many years. Until I met a friend who can talk to a person for about 5 minutes and then tell them what sign they are. I’ve seen him ask someone what their sign is, then add the chinese astrology for what year they were born in. He just met them, he’ll rattle of for 10-20 minutes all kinds of info about their personality in detail and their mouths will drop open. He’s a good friend and really believes in the stuff. But he doesn’t make any money from it, when people read the typical horoscope from the paper he’ll make fun of it, but when they talk about their sign he takes it seriously and what can I tell you. It makes as much sense to me as Velikovsky does to you. I don’t understand it. But I see with my own eyes that it works. It embarasses me because it isn’t logical and I don’t know what to think. WHY would it work? But I do have the guts to tell you about it here. After this experience, I wish there was a scientific body open enough to design a serious study on the topic and publish it no matter the outcome. Put together unique aspects of each sign, ask people to provide their birthdays and to check x character traits and see what comes up. Funnily enough I posted another thread asking people about their sign and I expected to see the thread flamed. To my utter shock it’s a pretty popular thread and most people seem to be saying that their sign and character traits match. I would have thought that a guy like you would have jumped on that thread and said my traits do NOT match my sign. But there wasn’t too much of that there… Don’t get me wrong, I know that thread proves nothing at all, but my point is, no serious scientific researcher could with a straight face come up with such a study. And if they did and it turned out to prove astrologers right after all, no serious scientist would accept the study. Am I right? If I’m right then the study only matters as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions… Finally, let’s say aliens are abducting humans. I think it’s BS but let’s say there’s some evidence that it’s happening. Same as with astrology, you could take it to the news because even if it’s wrong as long as it sells papers or gets ratings they’ll show the info. But in science, no serious scientist would be willing to look at the question objectively and if by chance they did, they couldn’t present it because scientists will laugh at them. These are 2 extremes on purpose. It’s to show that a bias exists. That’s how humans are, biased. But once in a while you need a Heretic like me to cherry pick the Velikovskys, separate them from the Von Danikens and force you guys to listen. ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163/20 "2001-04-07T21:35:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > \*\*Manda, > Nice post. It is worthwhile to differentiate the two, but I’d like to add that “scientific method”, what does that mean? Is there a God-given (heh heh) scientific method? Is there ONE man-made scientific method? Is the scientific method “improvable” upon? Reading Velikovsky, it’s clear to me that more can be added to scientific method. > \*\* As shown [here](http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)I think the scientific method is pretty basic and straight-forward. Not much to improve or add. And many brilliant people have studied and used this method, so if it were possible to “add to or improve it” it would have been done. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AnotherHeretic \* > \*\*Also, take astrology…{snip}…But I see with my own eyes that it works. It embarasses me because it isn’t logical and I don’t know what to think. WHY would it work? \*\* Well, Astrology is pretty general, Modern Popular Astrology (different from the ancient chineese astrology) was apparently started or refined by [Claudius Ptolemaeus](http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html) back in the time of alexandria, around 127-141 Ad. Meaning it has had lots of time to be perfected. (at least theoretically). A little bit of wanting to believe in something “different” and its easy to get sucked in. > [@](#): > > Mainstream science has not taken it seriously because they don’t take his celestial mechanics seriously. So predictions are only important when they fit your idea of the way the world works, not when they come true. If perhaps, and just a WAG here, I havn’t read any of Velikovsky’s works, his celestial mechanics were not taken seriously, it could be because he did not have enough evidence to be taken seriously. Which is not surprising. For “mainstream” science to take anything in consideration it requires ample observation, The formation of a hypothesis, and the preformance of experiments that can be reproduced by OTHERS. If said experiements are proven to be sound, but still go against the consenses of how the current understanding of physical laws operate, then the theory, while contraversial, will not get thrown out, just disputed untill one is proven to be the more accurate. A mere prediction, shown to be true or not, is not a scientific way of doing things. Said method is too easy to let fraudulent ideas in, hence making science accept too many faulty ideas. One must have a set method that is proven to work. “Mainstream science” is probably full of politics in a sense. They may poke holes in “fringe science” beliefs, but that is the way science operates. If said belief were sound, holes would not be produced. Science attempts to poke holes in other seemingly sound theories constantly, filling in areas that prove not to be sound. It is the way science advances. (Or at least as far as I can tell) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mainstream-science-out-to-get-fringe-science/61163.md?page=2)