Created and maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at:
.
COMPLAINTS OF INTELLECTUAL
|
|
First, does intellectual suppression exist in science? Of course it does,
since research journals publish only a small portion of the submitted
articles. Suppression is normal and expected. The beneficial purpose of
suppression is "triage" of unacceptable science articles. Since there
are plenty of other journals besides the big names (such as "Nature" and
"Science,") suppression is constantly used to maintain minimum standards
of quality, or to prevent obvious troublemakers from wasting our time.
For
example, if I submit rambling drunken poetry and nude photographs to a
science journal, they'll be discarded. That's "intellectual suppression."
And when moderators try to filter their email lists so spammers can't fill
them with advertising, that's suppression too. Nothing wrong with it. And
it's very, very common. Appropriate intellectual suppression is
the job of any journal editor or forum moderator. Inappropriate suppression exists as well. One common example is the well known backroom politics where governmental/industrial leaders try to prevent whistleblower scientists from publicizing embarrassing mistakes and criminal acts. In other words, "intellectual suppression" often means the same as "management coverup." Dr. Brian Martin maintains an entire website on the problems of political intellectual suppression in the sciences, see Suppression of DissentIntellectual suppression also has a long history involving eccentric but revolutionary science. Throughout the history of science, famous researchers who eventually created entire new fields of science initially found it nearly impossible to publish their research. Some didn't succeed for years, even decades. The scientific community ignored them, but eventually they were heard; eventually they conquered the suppression, but only after a major fight. The journal editors rejected their papers because the new research results was in conflict with common knowledge; it was too eccentric. Yet the "eccentric" ideas were right, and common knowledge was not. Wegner proposed drifting continents, while any geologist of the time knew that no such thing could happen. Semmilweis proposed that doctors' filthy hands were killing mothers after childbirth, an idea that would draw sneers from physicians of the time. Journal editors didn't realize that sometimes "eccentric" equals "breakthrough." Note well that nobody CONSPIRED to silence these revolutionary researchers. Editors and fellow scientists simply assumed that the eccentric papers were misguided, or are outright crackpotism. Here's a small list of examples of cutting-edge research which was unwittingly suppressed by a disbelieving scientific community: Ridiculed, vindicated discoverersThere's no question that inappropriate intellectual suppression is a real problem in the science. But there's no question that appropriate suppression is both a common and essential part of science. Isn't this a fairly simple concept?
Yet in recent years I've noticed a strange group-think phenomenon among
skeptical scientists. It appears commonly in USENET forums whenever
crackpots start discussing topics such as antigravity, perpetual motion,
etc., and the crackpots complain that no science journal will publish
their research. Their opponents then sneer, insisting that these
crackpot complaints are nothing but a conspiracy theory.
Um. What?
Let's get this straight. First an amateur wants physics journals
to
publish their maverick physics paper where they prove Einstein was
wrong... then the papers are rejected everywhere... and finally, if the
crackpot complains that everyone is against them, it means that the
crackpot is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST? But... but... all the physics
journals REALLY DO reject those papers! Scientists everywhere really are
against them. The crackpot really is being suppressed; their
publications are being blocked from all legitimate journals (usually with
good reason, but occasionally not.)
At first I suspected that the skeptics might be joking, but in questioning
them I
find that they're not. They really insist that anyone who complains about
intellectual suppression is a conspiracy theorist who should be ignored.
They really believe that intellectual suppression doesn't exist.
Over the years I've found that this strange reasoning is very widespread
among the online scientific community. I find it somewhat embarrassing
for me to be pointing out the flaws to those who accuse crackpots of
paranoia. (And I feel very confused when my observations are then
rejected, and the skeptics making these flawed arguments continue to do so
time and again.)
Just to make things perfectly clear once more: intellectual suppression
is very real, and is a valid part of the science culture. Therefore when
an author complains of universal suppression, he/she is complaining about
something genuine. Journal editors need not "conspire" together before
rejecting my (heh!) risque science photographs, or before rejecting papers
about Bigfoot or Cold Fusion or Continental Drift or the need for sterile
hands during surgery. Those editors INDIVIDUALLY are disbelievers.
That's why they reject the "eccentric" articles out of hand.
Here's something from my personal life that may shed light on the
proceedings. In marriage counseling I encountered a very common human
foible: "Invalidation." If someone doesn't wish to deal with their
spouse's complaints, they can choose to "not hear" those complaints via
the process of Invalidation; by declaring the complaints to be
disingenuous (by assuming that the complaints aren't what they seem, but
instead are ploys motivated by vengeance, jealousy, etc.) Rather than
taking the complaints seriously, their ears are blocked, and the
complainer is essentially silenced.
When a skeptic declares a crackpot's complaints to be "conspiracy
theories", ...this looks to me like a clear example of Invalidation: it's
a psychological move where the purpose is to erase any need to take the
crackpot's complaints seriously (or even to hear them at all.) To block
our ears against crackpots, we can declare them to be "conspiracy
theories." Since we rarely take conspiracy theorists seriously, or even
listen to their claims, our declaring a noisy crackpot (or a revolutionary
maverick) to be a conspiracy theorist is a good way to excuse ourselves
from having to listen.
But it's dishonest. When someone complains of suppression, their
complaint is almost always genuine. And note well: in most cases they
never complained about any conspiracy. It was the skeptic, the
person supposedly in support of reason and rational argument, who used the
straw-man fallacy and put those words in the crackpot's mouth. OK, since this debating tactic is so common, perhaps it needs its own name. "Suppression-complaints are conspiracy theories" is a bit wordy. "Conspiracy accusation?" "Labeled as paranoid?" Under which class of logical fallacy does this fall? |
.