Adam,

 You are quite correct in that the old ways die hard, and the scientific community after all is made of human beings who exhibit all the human traits.

 Many scientists -- some quite famous -- have remarked on this very problem, and there continue to be articles on it.  None changes much of anything.  Here's a quotation from George:

 "…I suggest that most revolutions in science have taken place outside the lofty arena of the refereed journals, and with good reason.  The philosophy by which these journals govern themselves virtually precludes publication of ideas that challenge an existing consensus."  William K. George, in Editing the Refereed Scientific Journal, edited by Robert A. Weeks and Donald L. Kinser, IEEE Press, New York, 1994, p. 227-228.

 Even when one makes it through the peer review process and  gets published in the journals, it is still very difficult to get anything new taken seriously.  Here is a good quote on that process as well:

 "We used to be able to say things once; if the message was reasonable, it had a good chance of becoming a permanent part of the structure of the field.  Today, a single publication is lost; if we say it only once, it will be presumed that we have changed our mind, and we therefore must publish repeatedly.  This further fuels the large publication volume that requires us to repeat."  Rolf Landauer, “Fashions in Science and Technology,” Physics Today, 50(12), Dec. 1997, p. 62.

 Best wishes,

 Tom Bearden

---

 
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:59:48 -0600
From: Adam 

To Tom Bearden,

Sir,

As I was listening to a radio talkshow, about the link between CJD and
mad cow disease, by a dr. venters? who has just published an article
about the tenuous link in the British Journal of Medicine; he made a
remark very relevant to your observations.

This is wrt to publications in journals and advancing the state of
science being very slow and difficult to do. The statement that made it
clear to me was that in all such journals there is a peer review
process. WHo are these peers? They are "experts" in their respective
fields. That is the people who are regarded as knowing the most about
it.

Unfortunately, this leads generally to new ideas being thrown out or
watered down in order to be able to publish. The orthodox view prevails
and slows down our advances.  This is the root of the problem. And that
is why more "speculative science" is needed. This is the only route to
creative solutions and progress.

Today, even the military "terror experts" have gone to Hollywood to
invite many thinkers and writers; it creative people to help them with
creating scenarios of possible future terror actions. This was reported
in the news as being the only way to break out of the old time religion
that the military thinkers/system has ... as does all bureaucratic
systems.

I most appreciate your constant reminders, even more so than the
technical details of your discourse; that true revelation comes only
from railing against the accepted view. After all, debate is the fuel of
the fire that destroys the old myths.

thanks and keep up your good work.

adam