Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Contradicting consensus

No Prizes
( blog for website at http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ )

















 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanczyk_Matejko.JPG


Mostly, there are no prizes for contradicting consensus.  Prizes are for consolidating an existing consensus in a way that will allow it to roll better, not (to use a railroad analogy), for switching the points that make it turn sharp left, or stops it in its tracks, or, as is the case here, go into reverse.  Not only are all the bandwagoners likely to fall off, but the vehicle is likely to be so severely damaged it is only fit for the scrap heap.  Even moreso there are no prizes for blowing whistles while doing so. If significant deviation is the intention it is usually better to adopt a quieter, more sober, and more surreptitious (political) approach by canvassing opinion and building a consensus, so that with time the bandwagon (and the people on it) are able to take the curve at a more acceptable pace.

It is half a century since Plate Tectonics left the station, and has been gathering momentum ever since as the framework for interpreting geology.  The increase in momentum however is due more to its path being downhill, helped by the weight of conjectural baggage, than it is to to do with any fuel stoking its firebox, which at every test turns out to be more damp squibs than anything else.  "Downhill all the way" ('subduction'), is Plate Tectonics default acknowledgement of the imperative of gravity.  It would surely far rather have a primary mechanism tangential to the Earth's crust whose full force could better make plates collide and crumple crust. 

It's actually something of a discomfiture for Plate Tectonics (not at all highlighted), that its *primary* mechanism *is* vertical - as in Earth Expansion.  The difference is simply that Earth expansion's primary verticality acts in the opposite direction - up - and has a geological signature related to the Earth's rotation and its first-order deformation (its oblate shape), and the way that oblateness has been modified in the dilation of the crust.  The big question for Earth expansion, which it can't yet answer (because it is a question for theoretical physics, not geology), is how rotation and energy are linked to create the material of the mantle (with its magnetic signature).

There is a further irony for Plate Tectonics too,  in that the more directly this primary force is actioned (as in slab 'rollback'), the less collisional crumpling and moving plates can happen, and the more crustal extension is increased (e.g. the 'back-arc basins of the Western Pacific).  But crustal extension is what happens at the ridges where the supposed convection cell is rising. So no matter which way Plate tectonics turns, gravity-driven extension is its primary dynamic (as in Earth expansion).

In Plate Tectonics gravitational adjustment (by falling mantle slabs) is the motive force, .. the driver, .. the *cause* of plate movement.   In Earth expansion downwards gravitational adjustment is a *result* of upwards (/outwards) global enlargement, that has a symmetry of inscription linking it to Earth's rotation - which Plate Tectonics ignores.  What precisely is causing the enlargement is not known, but it is materially manifest in the creation of the material of the mantle (including water).

Earth expansion thus *empirically* (not hypothetically) links the Earth's gravitational field with rotation and the creation of planetary material, and is a pointer to the physical reality of the quantum world at a scale that is directly accessible to us.  It is an exciting perspective on a subject that for half a century has shown no inclination to progress.  Plate Tectonics on the other hand remains mired in the *assumptions, speculations and escapes* of goal-post shifts of half a century in order to avoid exactly this conclusion, and even then is forced to recognise gravitational collapse (of the mantle) as its primary dynamic, despite its yearning for a dominantly tangential one.



Of course there's a cost. Financial and health are uppermost.  The time (mis-)spent working through something like this is substantial and negatively affects income in a number of ways.  And a desk job is a pain, literally.  There is also the psychic cost of being irked by the corruption and the threat to free speech that contrived conformity induces.  Encountering corruption in science (our "truth-teller"), is not good for you. Scepticism is insidious, and leads to cynicism, which tends to spill over into other areas of life, and the often spectacular errant behaviour of our commanders of societal institutions generally, doesn't help.  And of course if you're going to indulge in what others see as a foolish enterprise, then there's the cost of having to dress the part too. Well, .. it allows some concession to their view - but if they don't understand the nuttiness of the target subject(s) I doubt they'd see the irony in the deliberate fancy dress adopted to hob-nob with the walkers and the talkers.

Others, scientists among them who should know better, typically trot out the shibboleth, "If you have something to say, you should say it within the pages of scientific discourse and test it with peer review, .. scientists would give their right hand to say something new..etc etc."   This of course is a myth.  To bring any alternative message to the attention of a monolithic consensus (particularly when it reeks of corruption) is simply an invitation to be shot.  As has been demonstrated over the period of some ten years of posting about this on the internet, scientists are *not* interested in questioning the cardiac health of consensus, even when that consensus appears increasingly like a cadaver. The reasons are not on account of any geo-logic, but on account of their own personal professional security.  Despite its logic and scientific credentials, Earth expansion is a professional poison that, by the evidence, virtually all academics will not touch however much they might be inclined, or even want, to do so.  And be sure there are no prizes for drawing attention to the courage of their convictions.


Finally, a word of caution for others who think they might be in a position to go forward with this.  Make no mistake, there will be no prizes.  Geology today is far too ensconced in its own conviction and the (unwarranted) institutional kudos that supports it. Previous advances in the field followed crises of sorts, when things weren't working.  There were questions about what to do with the ocean floors.  Were they submerged continents?  Did landbridges exist? Exactly how were the vertical movements of orogenesis, taphrogenesis and epeirogenesis related? And what about the thousands of kilometres of trans-Atlantic displacement (Continental Drift")?  And the heat source apparently necessary to do that?  And (to cap it all) the astounding discovery of recent sea-floor spreading.  All of these represented advances from a position gained.  Earth expansion represents nothing of the sort, but a return to an earlier position already discarded. Investigating it means undoing everything that has been assembled to support a false consensus, and by implication to a considerable extent, the reputations of those who have built it.  Despite the  manifest contradictions of Plate Tectonics, and the vistas offered by the alternative of expansion, the advocates of Plate Tectonics (aided by cohorts of willing idiots), will do everything in their power to maintain its current status.

After the war and the triumph of theoretical physics in the creation of The Bomb, the whole way science was done, changed.  Natural philosophy was replaced by more quantitative and theoretical methods to which the principle of multiple working hypotheses was seen as better adapted.  It allowed focus, .. a more reductionist, 'scientific' approach.  Logic took a back seat.  Overnight it was acceptable to allow illogical contradictions, because if you scratched beneath the surface (with a little more arithmetical scribbling based on a 'good idea') you might find (at best) they were not contradictions at all, .. or (at worst) have another 'piece of the jigsaw' to add to the mix.  In the case of geology, neither has proven to be true.  There has been no conceptual advance since Plate Tectonics was first formulated, only goal-post-shifts of the 'escape' sort.  Of course, these are not seen as such by a new generation, who have learned the litany (and the method), but as proof of the theory.

Is this why (Earth) science is failing?  Because its core principle of logic has been usurped by theory?  Because theory has come to be maladapted?  ..  and, in the case of the Earth sciences at least, made it possible for those who inherently cannot see the difference between the two, to hog the driving seat?

Sam Carey (on Earth expansion; interviewed in 2002 just before he died).

"Through the 30s and 40s and 50s if you dared to propose this sort of thing [EE - d.f.] in America you'd be laughed at, you're a ratbag flat-earther. And there was no chance of getting a job if you had that kind of idea. But by about 1956 I could see the glimmerings of the recognition that something was wrong."   http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/tribute-to-sam-carey-and-peter-hunt/3508908#transcript

The present cohort, demonstrating obeisance to consensus.   Paradoxically, those who can, and should, and who are ostensibly in the best position to do so, .. will not, because like ingenues coerced to the sex trade, their hands are tied by the threat of retribution.  Even when the door is opened to set them free they cannot escape.  The risks are too great.  They are prisoners of the politics of consensus.
"Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-- science and the nation will suffer."    (Michael Crichton quoting Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.)

Plainly, the worst of it is that the science is not the issue. Rational argument is irrelevant. The subtext, 'consensus' and the politics of one sort or another that attend it, is the issue.  

Why science is failing? - Willing idiotry in the driving seat, incompetence stoking the firebox, and consensus politics in the guard's van.

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]


No comments:

Post a Comment