Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.
Yablon wrote:Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.
Joy, I absolutely agree. Jay
Joy Christian wrote:Yablon wrote:Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.
Joy, I absolutely agree. Jay
Thanks, Jay.
What I find disturbing is that there is no accountability in science for misdemeanours of the kind I mention. The culprits are usually rewarded for their misdeeds.
Here is the website by Brian Martin, who has investigated such cases of gross injustice for over 30 years: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html.
Joy Christian wrote:Hi Jay,
It must have been very frustrating to wait for 13 odd months for PRD to make up its mind. But I would say that is not so bad. It is better than your paper being rejected based on incompetent and unfair referee reports, like the ones discussed in this paper: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... reates.pdf.
Joy Christian wrote:That is great news, Jay. Your paper is getting a very special treatment from one of the top journals. That is something to be proud of, regardless of the final outcome.
I too have some good news. This paper of mine, which proposes an experiment to test my refutation of Bell's theorem (and which has been unfairly attacked by some on this very forum), has been accepted for publication. I dare not say which journal as yet, because some of the Bell mafia (especially Richard Gill) has been writing nasty letters about me to the President of my college in Oxford with malicious intent to hurt me. If I reveal the name of the journal here, then they will surely try to spook the editors of the journal about the paper (I am not being paranoid---they have done far worse). I will reveal the details as soon as the paper appears in print.
The acceptance of the paper is of course a major step forward for an independent realization of the experiment. Most conspicuously, the referees and editors---who seemed quite competent and knowledgeable in both Clifford algebra and physics in general---did not question the validity of my classical derivation of the strong quantum correlations. So the uninformed critics like Richard Gill who have been unfairly attacking my work on Bell for the past several years were dead wrong. Some of us of course knew that, but it is good to be vindicated and endorsed by a highly competent and knowledgeable referees and editors of a respected physics journal.
It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated.
Joy Christian wrote:Here is another brief summary of the suppression problem in science by Brian Martin: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/intro/DNAleaflet.pdf, with this conclusion:It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated.
Yablon wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Here is another brief summary of the suppression problem in science by Brian Martin: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/intro/DNAleaflet.pdf, with this conclusion:It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated.
Okay everybody, so let's try a little experiment. And be honest. If I put the name ArXiV and suppression in the same sentence, how many of you will feel intimidated by my doing so, because you are afraid that by saying something you might lose whatever rights you have to post papers there? Jay
Joy Christian wrote:Hi Jay,
I would certainly feel intimidated because the arXiv administrators seem to have absolute power to do whatever they like. Several of my anti-Bell papers have been on hold in the past few years, before being released after a week or so, with one of them---a reply to a critic of my work---reclassified to "general physics" before release. My latest paper, this one, for example, remained on hold at arXiv for nearly a month before being released. It is difficult to prove (at least in my case) that this was due to suppression or due to letter writing campaign by Gill. But there are other claims of suppression by the arXiv, documented, for example, in this book.
I have been fortunate, however, that none of my papers---even the anti-Bell ones---have been rejected by the arXiv. I remain intimidated by the arXiv nonetheless.
I sympathize with your current struggle [with Gill]. I do not understand why any researcher needs to attack another with inflammatory phrases like ". . . his research program has been set up around an elaborately hidden but trivial mistake," and "Sanity has been restored." I mean "elaborately hidden" implies deliberate deceit. His use of "Sanity has been restored" suggests clinical aberration on your part. Both phrases are personal attacks and pointlessly malicious. On the other hand your reply argument is thoughtful, detailed and free of sarcasm.
Keep up the good work.
Joy Christian wrote:...Sadly, I am not the first victim of Gill’s insatiable aggression, nor will I be the last, as I pointed out here.
Yablon wrote:
You know the landscape and the players way better than I. I have learned in my almost 61 years on this earth that bad human behaviors and motivations are always understood based on one or more self-interests: money, power, ego, or sex. (Sorry to throw that last one in, but we all know it is true.)
What are the various self-interests arrayed around Bell's theorem and it standing or falling? Is somebody going to lose a $billion project? Is somebody going to go to the physics doghouse? I just see such sound and fury going on over Bell, and frankly, I find it bewildering.
I'd really like to understand the self-interests that lead people to get so overwrought about this.
Jay
Joy Christian wrote:The battle between me and Richard Gill continues elsewhere: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... 8690369950.
lcwelch wrote:"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests