Suppression of new ideas in science is the norm not the exception.

[jeremyjr]

 

 

This is something that had been studied by sociologists of science:

 

1-The Plight of the Obscure Innovator in Science: http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/history1.htm

 

" Given these diverse roadblocks against obscure innovators, the surprising thing may well be that some unrenowned innovators, in science at least, have escaped the struggle, not that so many haven't. This note urges a systematic historical study to estimate the incidence of resistance. If such a survey shows that obscurity plus originality often lead to temporary or permanent oblivion, the case for structural reforms in science will become immeasurably stronger than it is now."

 

2- The Scientific Straightjacket: The Power Structure of Science and the Suppression of Environmental Scholarship:

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/81ecol.html

" Dissident scientists in communist countries receive wide publicity for their causes. But what of cases of suppression in the West? How do those who challenge the scientific establishment fare? And why have environmentalists become the chief target of those who seek to preserve the status quo?"

 

3- Strategies for dissenting scientists: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98jse.html

 

" Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science is a system of power as well as knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed".

 

4- Scientific dissent and public policy: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2013.8/abstract

 

" The temptation to silence dissenters whose non-mainstream views negatively affect public policies is powerful. However, silencing dissent, no matter how scientifically unsound it might be, can cause the public to mistrust science in general."

 

So suppression is real and it had happened and it is happening. The rosy picture that some people want to portrait of science and scientists is as detached from reality as many of the views that they support.

[StringJunky]

Show us some recent examples of suppression by the scientific establishment.

[Wolfhnd]

When I think of conformity to social standards I always think of the hippies. It seems that not conforming to the "establishments" standards quickly became a standard of it's own. Dress, language, habits, and politics were remarkably standardized in the hippie culture.

 

The scientific community is no different than any other tribe, with a hierarchy of individuals who set the rules and those that must conform or be shunned. As was the case with the hippies the creed of intellectual freedom is much overstated.

 

I'm sure all of you have heard of the parliament of genes but it is a democracy that favors high fidelity replication. As with genes mutations in the science culture will most often be undesirable it's a question of the right balance between fidelity and novelty.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[Strange]

Again? Really?

 

1. Suggest some research should be done - presumably because there is no evidence of the suppression of innovators.

 

2. Is about political dissent.

 

3. Is about strategies to avoid suppression (which you seem to claim is impossible)

 

4. Is about political dissent.

 

And you still haven't responded to any of the criticisms in your previous thread...

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, that's enough vacuous posturing for jeremyjr. Go sit in the corner for a week, read a textbook and learn how to criticize constructively.