Arhcive Freedom (archivefreedom.org), is an orginization
started to fight the repression of theories by certain scientists.
According to Archive Freedom, the electronic preprint archive
arXiv.org, which is supposed to be an open forum for physicists
to submit papers describing their theories on various subjects,
seems to be purposely excluding the theories of certain
scientists that arXiv.org does not agree with. And that there
are scientists that are "blacklisted".

If this is the case, then it is something that is tragic indeed.
Scientists should be allowed to submit their theories even if
those theories may go against established physics.

This is from Archive Feedom:

Repression of Physicists in the 21st Century

The electronic preprint archive (arXiv.org), founded in 1991 at Los Alamos National Laboratories and funded by the National Science Foundation, was formed as a way for scientists to rapidly disseminate new discoveries and theoretical developments to the worldwide scientific community. Its original intent was to be an open forum for papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed journals. Over time the criteria for approval of submitted papers to the archive became more complicated and restrictive.
Presently hosted at Cornell University under the direction of physicist Paul Ginsparg, it blocks certain physicists from posting their papers to this archive. The arXiv administrators maintain a list of physicists whom they have blacklisted or ostracized so that any paper those individuals attempt to submit is systematically rejected regardless of its scientific content. Usually these blocked papers have already been accepted for publication in reputable peer refereed science journals or in other cases are undergoing review for journal publication which indicates that these papers are serious and well thought out. The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates! One characteristic that these ostracized physicists share in common is that they have written or published papers in the past which propose new ideas that challenge traditional physics dogma. In other cases their published works just happen to run counter to the particular theory preferences of the small political clique administering the archive.
Our world is experiencing serious problems such as exponential population growth, environmental pollution, impending energy shortages, nuclear proliferation, and climatic change. We cannot afford to suppress the works of those seminal minds whose new ideas could revolutionize the way we interact with the world. What if a paper described the discovery of a new source of energy that could help to alleviate the coming energy crisis? Or, what if a paper brought to light a serious environmental hazard which, if unheeded, would result in a substantial loss of life. And, what if arXiv.org moderators censored one such important paper because of a possible personal dislike of its author or because it conflicted with a theory they personally favored? Society cannot afford this kind of behavior.
In today's fast changing world it is not enough just to publish one's ideas in scientific journals, a process that can drag on from months to years until approved for publication. Rapid communication of all plausible new ideas to the academic community through an easily accessible internet archive is essential to the progress of science.

The purpose of this site is to alert the public about the blocking activities being conducted by the Cornell sponsored arXiv.org administrators and to relate the case histories of those scientists who have been censored and/or blacklisted. Archive Freedom advocates that this practice be immediately stopped and that all scientists be given open uncensored access to this archive to post their technical papers. We respectfully urge the administrators at Cornell University, as guardian of the world's knowledge of physics, to honor the contributions of all serious scientists.

Some examples of this repression can be found at this link: Case histories

<blockquote>If this is the case, then it is something that is tragic indeed.
Scientists should be allowed to submit their theories even if
those theories may go against established physics. </blockquote>

It doesn't surprise me at all that such things are occurring. I've read reports in the past where scientists that have spent decades working on something only to find that the results went against the accepted norm and their work was buried and the scientist(s) involved in the theory were black-balled by their peers.

Scientific study seems like it's more political at times than scientific and I have questioned results and theories for years because of how poorly the scientific community handles itself. If you don't come up with the results that confirm the belief of the moment, your study is deemed flawed, your classed as a troublemaker and the results are quickly discredited and replaced with junk science results.

This is just my opinion based on what I've seen happening over many years.

---

To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...

It isn't surprising that scientists tend to be parochial about their fields. Let's face it, if EVERY thought got published, we'd get buried in, and be funding research for, quite a collection of unsubstantiated hypothesis, like the complicated and ludicrous hypotheses of the flat-earth society.

Moreover, let's each suppose we were the ones working on theories for forty years that increasingly seem to be unsupported by the latest data. The ideal scientist would be able to accept that much of their life's work has been less than useful, but it's hard for us real human being to.

Suppose, for instance, that new evidence crops up destroying the mathematics of string theory. How easily would this group, which has fought so hard to gain acceptance, accept that the theory didn't work? I'm not making an argument against string theory, mind you. I'm just trying to call to mind a group that has a lot of pride invested in their work.

It was probably no different for those working under the "ether" model of electromagnetism, or any other theory that has been invalidated.

I'm not saying that many scientists couldn't afford to be a little more open-minded, but I'm saying I can understand why they might be a little stubborn.

<blockquote>It isn't surprising that scientists tend to be parochial about their fields. Let's face it, if EVERY thought got published, we'd get buried in, and be funding research for, quite a collection of unsubstantiated hypothesis, like the complicated and ludicrous hypotheses of the flat-earth society.

Moreover, let's each suppose we were the ones working on theories for forty years that increasingly seem to be unsupported by the latest data. The ideal scientist would be able to accept that much of their life's work has been less than useful, but it's hard for us real human being to.

Suppose, for instance, that new evidence crops up destroying the mathematics of string theory. How easily would this group, which has fought so hard to gain acceptance, accept that the theory didn't work? I'm not making an argument against string theory, mind you. I'm just trying to call to mind a group that has a lot of pride invested in their work.

It was probably no different for those working under the "ether" model of electromagnetism, or any other theory that has been invalidated.

I'm not saying that many scientists couldn't afford to be a little more open-minded, but I'm saying I can understand why they might be a little stubborn.</blockquote>

Hmm, I think that you've made some good points here Murasaki.
If one was to read some of the ideas of these blacklisted scientists,
it would be somewhat more easy to understand why some people in the
mainstream scientific community may not want to accept their ideas.
The website of the Starburst Foundation describes a similar reasoning
for this kind of exclusion that I think you'll find interesting. You
might also find the Galactic Superwave and Subquantum Kinetics theories
very interesting as well. Paul A. LaViolette, one of the blacklisted
arXiv scientists, is the president of the Starburst Foundation. Starburst Foundation

Here is a link to the Paul A. LaViolette Bio: Paul A. LaViolette

[edit] Man, I almost forgot about the flat-earth society. I just remembered your referrence to them some time ago. Now those guys are... way out there [/edit]

<blockquote><blockquote>If this is the case, then it is something that is tragic indeed.
Scientists should be allowed to submit their theories even if
those theories may go against established physics. </blockquote>

It doesn't surprise me at all that such things are occurring. I've read reports in the past where scientists that have spent decades working on something only to find that the results went against the accepted norm and their work was buried and the scientist(s) involved in the theory were black-balled by their peers.

Scientific study seems like it's more political at times than scientific and I have questioned results and theories for years because of how poorly the scientific community handles itself. If you don't come up with the results that confirm the belief of the moment, your study is deemed flawed, your classed as a troublemaker and the results are quickly discredited and replaced with junk science results.

This is just my opinion based on what I've seen happening over many years.
</blockquote>

That's pretty much how I see it too RDC.

EPA study doesn't quite fit the official policy stance....?

Throw it out.

Global Warming....?

Nah, ..not credible if it doesn't promote corporate interests.

Mercury contamination...?

Just up the acceptable parts per million....

Clean Air Act...?

Eh... we can get around that.

Carry on..... it's only science, it can be ignored.

---

Politics/religion/science will there be agreement?

---

All this of course is hardly news. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler or Gallileo, anyone?

---

Another scientist that is blocked from posting at ArXiv is Michael Ibison. Dr. Ibison has written various papers in diverse fields that can be found at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin.

On Tuesday, May 17, I sent Michael Ibison an e-mail expressing my views about the blacklising that goes on at ArXiv, and he was kind enough to respond to me on the same day. I think that Dr. Ibison explained some of the possible outcomes that the censorship at ArXiv may have on scientific progress quite well. So here is my e-mail to Michael Ibison followed by his response, which he said I may be free to post on this board:

Dear Mr. Ibison,

I was recently shocked to read at Archive Freedom about the blacklising that goes on over at ArXiv.org, and that you were one of the blacklisted scientists. I'm not a scientist, but I think that credible scientists should be allowed to submit their ideas to ArXiv even if those ideas go against popular established physics. I take part in the SETI@home project that's run by Berkeley (I don't work at Berkeley), and have posted some information at the SETI@home message boards in the Cafe section so more people can learn about this unfortunate blacklisting of scientists. If you like, you can check out the Suppression Of Science thread that I started at the message boards in the Cafe section. It's probly not much, but I thought I might do a little something so people can learn about what's going on.

Kind Regards,

Alex Carlson


Dear Alex

I appreciate the time you have taken to write this note and your sympathetic words. I will visit your web-cafe with interest. I too am unhappy with the situation. The issue here is not the importance or otherwise (!) of my work, it is the general principal of equality of treatment based solely on scientific merit. ArXiv was intended to be a place to post documents awaiting review or which are in press. Censorship of these posts must to some degree subvert the scientific process; the censors are not part of the generally accepted review process. Since censors are lossy filters and who are undoubtedly (self) selected in favour of a conservative psychological disposition, the result is a skewed, unrepresentative distribution of papers on the archive. In the long term this will retard scientific progress. Is this a manifestation of the current broader trend (or perhaps more accurately: recidivism) towards conformity - religious, political, and now scientific? Of course standards must be maintained. But orthodoxy is not a standard. Part of the problem is the sheep / herd-instinct mentality. Perhaps we should expect and just accept that scientific structures, just like religious and political structures, will ossify over time. If so, then for the true spirit of the enterprise to survive, eventually, periodically, it will be seen to be working against that structure. I am forwarding your letter and this response to Brian Josephson, who has been kind enough to cite my name in his own efforts to highlight these goings-on and get things changed.

Best wishes

Michael Ibison


Michael Ibison Bio

For those that are interested in science and physics, here is an excellent paper written by Dr. Ibison: Un-renormalized Classical Electromagnetism

---

Let's wellcome Michael Ibison as a participant of the project here, crunching BOINC!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Let's wellcome Michael Ibison as a participant of the project here, crunching BOINC!

He would be welcome I think.

---