200 YEARS OF PERSECUTIONS AND LIES AGAINST SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM BY THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT
by Alberto Miatello
If we asked all the scientists in the world about the most important good in their activity, no doubt most of them would indicate scientific freedom on top of the list.
Scientific freedom is the quintessence of scientific activity, in the same way as water is the most important element for fishes. It is also a “corollary” of science itself, because no new scientific discovery can be made, without the possibility to freely study and investigate (freedom of thought) and then discuss, compare, disclose and publish scientific results (freedom of the press).
In 1958 the Hungarian (then naturalized British and member of the Royal Society) scientist Michael Polanyi, became famous with his book: “Personal Knowledge”, in which he refuted the common view that scientific method is something “objective” and “neutral”, on the contrary he pointed out that scientists are normally following personal passions before deciding which problems and scientific facts deserve to be investigated.
[ad name=”Google Adsense 468×60 Banner Blue”]
Therefore – Polanyi argued – just a liberal system which can guarantee total freedom “to pursue science for its own sake” (as opposed to a conception in which science should be instrumental to pursue “social needs”, i.e. contaminated by political evaluations) can be suggested as a way to allow total and real scientific freedom.
However, scientific freedom today, in a world dominated by powerful government, business, media and lobby groups, is far from having been reached.
Although today it is not so common as in the past that a scientist is subject to physical violence (as Ignac Semmelweis was in XIX century), there are many ways by which today the scientific establishment can silence and marginalize inconvenient scientists.
One of the commonest ways – as we shall see – is the method of labeling (see herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory ) as derived by the sociological theories of Becker, Lemert, Mead, Goffman, etc., i.e. put a negative label, as a sort of “stigma” of deviance on some groups or categories by dominant groups, so that to prevent other persons from following them, or marginalize.
Whereas in the past 100 years typical and common negative labels in social life were: “adultery”, “Jew”, “criminal”, “homosexual”, “mental ill”, “negro”, etc., now in the scientific establishment two negative labels seem to dominate:
1. “Conspiracists” ( a negative label meaning that someone or some groups are “foolishly” believing that 2 or more persons are behind some resounding facts such as murders, great events of history, or similar)
2.” Deniers “ (another negative and offensive label meaning that some scientific groups would “deny” an alleged “evident” scientific opinion, in the same way as filo-nazi historians denied the historical truth of the holocaust).
What follows is a short analysis of some of the most famous persecutions and/or falsifications against the scientific freedom in the last 200 years.
1. Ignaz Semmelweis
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818 – 1865) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis is considered the father and founder of the modern asepsy , i.e. all the technics for cleaning and disinfection in surgery, and medical procedures, and he is also gratefully remembered all over the world as the “savior of mothers”.
He discovered that the high incidence of puerperal fevers in obstetrical departments of hospitals was linked to the bad habit of many doctors to visit poor mothers after childbirths, after performing dissections of corpses in the morgue, without cleaning their hands and thereby transmitting infections.
Semmelweis suggested some very simple procedures of hand cleaning with solutions of chlorinate, to kill bacteria, and his suggestions and publications led to a drastic drop of mortality in obstetrical departments.
However some idiotic (although ”important”) members of the scientific community in Wien resented and felt “offended” by Semmelweis’ suggestions, and started to boycott him. Then Semmelweis was fired and started to suffer various nervous diseases, after such a bad treatment. At the end he was hospitalized in an asylum, and died just 14 days after commitment, when he was just 47 year old, after having been violently beaten by the guards.
20 years later the great Louis Pasteur defended and gave full scientific support to the Semmelweis theory of asepsy, unfortunately Semmelweis could not get any reward for his discovery.
Semmelweis’ case is probably considered the most shameful and blatant example of scientific persecution by the stupidity and arrogance of the scientific establishment, in the last 2 centuries.
And now we will examine more modern cases, in which the scientific establishment tried/is trying to put hindrances to the scientific freedom, through the constant use of labels such as “deniers”, or “conspiracists”
2. CO2, GHE, and CFC (clorofluorocarbons)
As we all know, “deniers” is the commonest negative label which is being used against us, by the upholders of scientific “consensus” in climate science. Deniers simply means – in their distorted vision of science – that in climate science everything is “settled” (a term coined by Nicholas Stern in his report of 2006), and no further discussion should be admitted other than global temperatures are rising, and that should occur just for CO2 human emissions. And that’s the reason why important scientific magazines such as “Nature”, and “Science” in the last years simply refuse to publish articles not complying with the “pseudoscience” of global warming, as the Nobel prize-winner Ivar Giaever (who resigned from the American Physical Society for this reason) named it.
However, it would be too long to discuss here why GW is a pseudoscience, Readers can find dozen articles here at Principia Scientific International (PSI).
What it is interesting to notice, is that PSI has several times made a clear distinction between some unscientific and untenable positions of IPCC, such as those regarding GW, and other correct and scientifically serious statements, as those regarding the danger of CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) for our atmosphere and environment.
In other words: IPCC and GW supporters are wrong when trying to persuade people that CO2 can heat the atmosphere, and Greenhouse Effect Theory is correct, because both theories have no serious scientific ground, but they are correct in denouncing the danger for the atmosphere and our Ozone layer in stratosphere, by the use of CFC, because CFC really destroy the Ozone layer (filtering UV radiations) causing a bigger heating.
Our Readers can find several articles here in PSI showing the danger of CFC for our Ozone layer (last article: “Geoengineering is destroying the Ozone layer, by Dane Wigington, August 2, 2013).
Thus, it is blatantly false the accusation of scientific “denialism” toward us, as we have no problem in recognizing IPCC’s correctness where a phenomenon is scientifically proved.
CFC’s danger for Ozone layer is proved, CO2 and GHE “warmism” have no scientific basis, and we cannot but clearly say it.
3. JFK Assassination
The murder of President Kennedy is another example of scientific misuse of the label “conspiracists”.
In recent years those who believe that Kennedy was killed by an organized plot (nearly 80% of Americans) are constantly named “conspiracists”, meaning that the only correct historical and scientific reconstruction of JFK murder should be that of the Warren Commission, namely that of the “lonely gunman” (i.e. Lee H. Oswald).
Yet, this approach is false and misleading, and omits to consider that:
a) Official reports of the Government (such as the “House Select Committee on Assassination” in 1978-1979) have already been released saying that “President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”, thus it is totally wrong, both historically and scientifically, to go on repeating that those who don’t believe the Warren Commission’s conclusions of 1964 (clearly influenced by the political worries of that time to avoid international frictions with the Soviet Union, or finding involvements in the murder of other powerful organizations: mafia, CIA, oilmen, etc.) now became “conspiracists”.
b) Those who support the old, official conclusions of the Warren Commission about the “lonely gunman”, tried many times to arrange ballistic and “scientific” reconstructions to uphold those conclusions, but are always unable to explain some plain FACTS, such as:
1) At least 40 persons saw puff of smoke, or heard shots coming from the stockade fence of the grassy knoll
2) The version of Governor John Connally, who always said that he turned back and saw Kennedy keeping his hands on his throat, BEFORE another shot hit him on his chest rib. Connally repeated this version many times, and he never changed it.
This is clearly a total debunk of the “magic bullet” theory, purporting that the same bullet could hit both Kennedy and Connally.
Thus, at least 4 shots were surely fired in just 5.6” and even the Warren Commission admitted that no more than 3 shots could have been fired by that Mannlicher-Carcano in a so short span of time.
However, the main point is that a total freedom of scientific and historical research should be allowed for this crucial historical event, and negative labels such as “conspiracists” should be banned once forever.
4. Moon landings
The word “conspiracists” is often being used also to describe the ultra-skeptical “theory”, maybe fostered by fantasy movies like “Capricorn One” (1978), or by the fact that after 1972 no new human landing on the Moon was performed, according to which the 6 Apollo missions that brought man on the Moon were a colossal “hoax”, and Moon landings were just an accurately organized staged fake, with the help – some argued – of famous film directors as Stanley Kubrick, and it seems (from several polls), that a percentage between 6-20% of Americans is skeptical regarding the actual landing of mankind on the Moon.
It is important to analyze this misuse of the word “conspiracists” in this situation, because this is a clear example of how unreliable and generalized is the use of the same word, to describe totally different situations.
It is clear that Moon landings were true, historical and scientific facts, and better than “conspiracists”, it would be necessary to use the word “ignorants”, to name those who believe that Moon landings never happened.
There are at least 4 compelling reasons, providing full evidence that Moon landings really happened: age of samples of Moon rocks, laser retroreflectors, non-Nasa observers of lunar missions (USSR, Australia, Spain) recent photographs (2012) of lunar Apollo artifacts, including shadows of FLAGS planted by Apollo’s astronauts.
But the most evident proof of the human landings on the Moon is provided by simple common good sense reasoning: it would have been humanely impossible to organize such a huge “hoax”, persuading many different astronauts, hundreds technicians, etc., both to organize and to keep the secret for decades on such a foolish hoax.
This is another clear example of the ideological misuse of the word “conspiracists”.
5. September 11, 2001
And finally, it seems necessary to analyze another incorrect and ideological misuse of the word “conspiracists”, with reference to those who are unsatisfied about the official version by the government of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and by another flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and are therefore requesting more investigations, to find the truth.
First of all, it makes no sense to name “conspiracists” those who are asking for more investigations, because the 9/11 attacks were by definition a conspiracy, in which many hijackers acted simultaneously, and they were supported by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.
Moreover, it is not true that the refusal to consider “satisfying” the official version of 9/11 terrorist attacks, would necessarily mean to agree with some radicals theories such as those from Michael Moore (in the movie: “Fahrenheit 9/11) , hinting close relationships of the US past governments, Bush family and Bin Laden family, and even suggesting therefore an indirect/direct involvement of government agencies/members in the 9/11 attacks.
Probably the most persuading appeal to go on with scientific investigations on 9/11 Twin Towers collapse (especially) was the one coming from 2,000 American Architects and Engineers (http://www.ae911truth.org/) who deeply and technically analyzed the Twin Towers collapse, and suspected a “controlled demolition”, i.e. the use of thermite explosive in key points of steel structures, as the crashes of the hijacked airplanes, and the subsequent fires on top of the buildings were not sufficient to produce a total and quick (when it took place) collapse of the Twin Towers.
The only comment can be: let scientific investigations freely go on here too, with no fear to discover new things, and without labels and censorships that could make hindrance to the scientific truth and freedom.
Copyright 2014 Alberto Miatello
CONSPIRACISTS”, “DENIERS”, AND OTHER LABELS
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno >>
Note: Response to this article from Paul Clark
The term “conspiracy theorist” is a lazy label applied to anyone who disagrees either with the labeller or the mainstream. It’s good to question the points raised.
1. Never heard of him
2. CFCs causing ozone hole is a hoax. First big global one that worked — paved the way for the AGW hoax.
Greenhouse effect is a total hoax that defies both laws of thermodynamics. 1st law says that you can’t get energy for free, GHE says you can. 2nd law says heat can’t flow from cooler atmosphere to ground, GHE says you can.
Anthony Watts too stupid to realise this, even as he mocks PSI for such.
3. Kennedy was shot from front:
4. Here’s where your post gets confusing and falls apart for me. The moon landing is obviously fake.
Points offered in favour are the usual paltry ones. You seem to offer the usual appeal to popularity as proof of the legitimacy of the moon landings e.g. moon rocks which came from Von Braun’s expedition to Antarctica shortly before they occurred. You make a call to “scientific and technical facts” as though that phrase adds legitimacy to your claims that these landings were real; spare me.
Retroreflectors prove nothing, they were bouncing stuff off the moon long before these tiny inconsequential reflectors were allegedly placed.
As for the tracking of something by the Russians: what does that prove, they didn’t even have triangulation at that point?
Apollo 17 takes off; obviously model on a string:
Another model, supposed to be 2 tonne space craft:
I cringe with embarrassment on behalf of Anthony Watts every time he makes a post affirming the legitimacy of these obvious moon landing hoaxes.
5. Dead obvious that 3 buildings came down via controlled demolition on Sep 11: buildings 1, 2 & 7; + stand-down of US military.
How did another patsy: Osama bin Laden arrange that? He did not claim responsibility and said there was a govt within a govt who did it. Then we have the bogus look-alike videos afterwards made for stupid people to believe he was responsible.
Maybe that’s what you’re getting at in a round about sort of way?
Bottom line is this: all of life is a test of perception of reality. Most “can’t handle the truth”, or are too stupid to realise the truth, so they prefer to shirk it.
Then why was there no pile driver (top few floors) left at the end? Why was it all pulverised, with no piece bigger than a hand? Why did the pile driver fall through the path of greatest resistance and not merely fall off the edge?
Why did people emerge with their skin stripped from their body describing explosions? Why were there many explosions in the basement minutes before each of the two buildings collapsed — the same way? Why was there a pyroclastic flow indicating extreme heat? What about building 7? Why did the BBC report building 7’s collapse minutes before it happened — how could they know? Why was there never such an office fire-driven collapse before or after 9/11?
Why was there exploded and unexploded thermite in the dust? Why were there once-molten micro spheres of iron — office fires can’t melt iron? Why were there rivers of molten metal for weeks after? Why did the authorities ship off all the debris and destroy it and wait a year before finally, reluctantly making a bogus investigation, that still hasn’t explained building 7?
Why were pieces projected half a mile away, lodging in other buildings? Why didn’t they stop building buildings like this given how fragile they apparently are? Why did the firefighters say it popped out “floor by floor” as though it was a controlled demolition? Why were the central columns left standing for several seconds after the floors and outside were stripped violently from it, not bringing these columns down initially?
Why? Because Popular Mechanics said it meant nothing, that’s why!
PS2 NIST and Scientific Fraud
Note: the following is part of this article:
At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery. 
The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.
But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?” 
From a purely scientific perspective, of course, there would have been an obvious answer. Scientists, presupposing the regularity of nature, operate on the principle that like effects generally imply like causes. Scientists are, therefore, loathe to posit unprecedented causes for common phenomena. By 9/11, the collapse of steel-framed high-rises had become a rather common phenomenon, which most Americans had seen on television. And in every one of these cases, the building had been brought down by explosives in the process known as controlled demolition. From a scientific perspective, therefore, the obvious assumption would have been that WTC 7 came down because explosives had been used to remove its steel supports.
However, the public discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center did not occur in a scientific context, but in a highly charged political context. America had just been attacked, it was almost universally believed, by foreign terrorists who had flown hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, and in response the Bush administration had launched a “war on terror.” The idea that even one of the buildings had been brought down by explosives would have implied that the attacks had not been a surprise, so this idea could not be entertained by many minds in private, let alone in public.
This meant that people had to believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Building 7 had been brought down by fire, even though, as Glanz wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”  And so, this building’s collapse had to be considered a mystery – insofar as it was considered at all.
But this was not much. Although WTC 7 was a 47-story building, which in most places would have been the tallest building in the city, if not the state, it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers. It was also dwarfed by them in the ensuing media coverage. And so, Glanz wrote, the collapse of Building 7 was “a mystery that . . . would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” if the Twin Towers had not also come down.  As it was, however, the mystery of Building 7’s collapse was seldom discussed.
For those few people who were paying attention, the mysteriousness of this collapse was not lessened by the first official report about it, which was issued by FEMA in 2002. This report put forward what it called its “best hypothesis” as to why the building collapsed, but then added that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence.” 
This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.  James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”
The task of providing the definitive explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 was given to NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Although NIST had been expected to issue its report on this building along with its report on the Twin Towers, which came out in 2005, it did not. NIST then continued to delay this report until August of 2008, at which time it issued a Draft for Public Comment.
1. NIST’s Denial of Evidence for Explosives
At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.” Also, announcing that NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down,”  he said: “[S]cience is really behind what we have said.”  In the remainder of this lecture, I will show that both of those statements were false.
NIST and Scientific Fraud
With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.
Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. 
Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”