Table of Contents
Praise for Science Was Wrong
Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden, nuclear physicist and
educator, have collaborated to show how often evolving scientific dogmas
have been wrong and data that contradicted those dogmas was
deliberately ignored. Science has been wrong about Jupiter, smallpox,
medicines, food contaminationsand is wrong in its dismissal of the
UFO phenomena that the authors show in Chapter 13 is a government-controlled
policy of denial to make lies official truths.
Linda Moulton Howe, Emmy Award-winning
TV producer and investigative journalist
An excellent reference for errors in conventional science fields as
diverse as astronomy, medicine, environmental science, psychic phenomena
and UFOs.
Dr. Bruce Maccabee, retired Navy physicist
Its another hit for Friedman and Marden! The duo focuses their
attention on outrageous scientific proclamations of the last 150 years,
while highlighting potential knowledge breakthroughs Science refuses
to consider and shunts asideto the collective detriment of humanity.
Rob Swiatek, physicist, UFO researcher
This book is dedicated to our loving spouses, Marilyn and Charles.
We wish to acknowledge the brilliant people who have voiced misguided proclamations of impossibility. Without them, this book would not have been possible.
Special thanks to Catherine Marden for her proofreading assistance and suggestions throughout the writing process and to Rob Belyea for preparing our photos for publication.
To our literary agent, John White, for successfully pursuing a publisher for our books.
To our editors at New Page Books, Kirsten Dalley and Diana Ghazzawi, for their expert assistance in this books production.
And finally, to the individuals, too numerous to mention, who contributed to the successful completion of Science Was Wrong by providing expert opinions, releases, comments, and conference space. Your assistance is very much appreciated.
Introduction
The history of science and technology is rife with authoritative claims by reputable scientists that have impeded progress. Many of the claims seem humorous with the benefits of hindsight. There have also been a number of compilations of silly claims of impossibility made by smart people. But no book, until now, goes into the serious implications for society of blindly rejecting new scientific discoveries simply because they fail to conform to the preconceived paradigms of the scientific establishment. This book critically examines historical proclamations of impossibility in the areas of aerospace, technology, medicine, and politics that were later refuted, and investigates the frontiers of science.
The history of aerospace technology is loaded with well-connected scientists who resisted change. There were prominent experts who thought flight was not to be. Had they been supportive of progress in this field, there could have been real benefits to humanity. Could World War II have ended sooner if jet engines had been implemented earlier in England, where a patent had been granted in 1930? How many lives would have been saved if space travel had been pursued sooner, providing better advance information about natural disasters, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and early warning of attacks from enemies?
Communication techniques didnt start changing until less than 200 years ago. The telegraph, telephone, television, Internet, and cell phone were all targets for the impossibilists. Sometimes it required true persistence to overcome the inertia of these traditionalists. Why would one want to sit in front of a box watching pictures? Of what use is a telephone if there is nobody to call? Their lack of imagination and foresight is obvious. Did they not think of the benefits of rapid, long-distance communication in medical situations or when ships at sea run into serious problems? Can we allow societal regulations to be established in response to pressures from people with a vested interest in continuing the status quo?
Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts and later proposed in 36 BC. Despite observational and experimental data, it was not widely accepted until late in the 19th century, when Louis Pasteur discovered that microorganisms, not miasmas (the poisonous atmosphere arising from swamps and putrid matter), cause disease. Unfortunately, his discovery was not immediately accepted. Many influential opponents from the scientific establishment clung to their archaic beliefs and were slow to acknowledge that his germ theory of disease was valid. Attempts by his predecessors to impart evidence of the transmission of microscopic organisms as a cause of disease were largely unsuccessful. As a result, careers were ruined, and many people died because of a failure to implement new treatments and new understanding of various diseases. Even in our day, experts have often dismissed the dangers of new treatments long after the data was available. How many contracted HIV/AIDS because of the failure of governments to take appropriate measures? It is clear that innovative scientists have a long history of facing harsh rebukes by the medical establishment.
Worse, highly regarded but politically influenced scientists have promoted ideas that have led to human suffering. For example, social Darwinism fueled the Eugenics Movements in America and Germany and led to sterilization and extermination programs. The dark underbelly of corruption has reared its head in environmental science, causing thousands to die or be maimed due to methylmercury poisoning. Additionally, we are faced with environmental concerns about global warming. Should hundreds of billions of dollars be spent to attack evil carbon dioxide, or is this another example of vested interests triumphing over the real needs of society?
This book explores the frontiers of science, such as psychic phenomena and extraterrestrial visitation. A small group of vocal arch-skeptics claims a hundred years of research has failed to produce convincing evidence for psi phenomena. Parapsychologists disagree, arguing that hundreds of scientific studies have produced evidence that some psi phenomena are real. Each group accuses the other of confirmation bias. But what is the truth? Do parapsychologists selectively report evidence that supports psi phenomena? Or do arch-skeptics automatically reject statistically significant experimental replications?
For more than 60 years, strong attacks have been made on all aspects of the UFO question. Impossibilists have claimed that travel from other stars is impossible, there is no evidence for flying saucer reality, aliens could not possibly look humanoid, governments could not cover up the truth, aliens wouldnt behave the way they are supposedly observed to behave, eyewitness testimony is not part of the scientific method, there is no reason to abduct Earthlings, and so on. These claims are not derived from a serious review of the evidence, but rather are created by armchair theorizing without relation to the vast amount of evidence available for those who seek it out. False attempts have been made to show that Occams razor supposedly rules out saucer reality, and that scientists in generaland astronomers in particulardo not observe UFOs. It turns out that the primary attacks on UFO reality by supposed professionals can generally be described as pseudoscientific. The attackers have inordinate confidence in themselves plus an almost religious faith in their feelings, intuition, and hunches. They simply dont need to investigate because they know the answers. That is not science, but pseudoscience.
Next page