|
Meta Research Bulletin ©2006
Å O
Å *** NOTICE:
Our mailing address as of 2006 is: Meta Research /
Å *** As a step in our transition to internet
publication, this issue will be available to our readers on-line. To read
and/or download or print the on-line version with its higher-resolution, color
graphics and active links, go to: http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2006issues/1215/Mrb06d.asp.
Please check it out in preparation for the next issue (electronic only except
for print subscribers), and send suggestions about making readability easier to
tomvf@metaresearch.org.
Å All subscribers and Members: see enclosed renewal
notice. If already paid into 2007, watch for email notification of electronic
publication of future issues.
Å We have only a single feature article in this issue.
It is too long by about eight pages to fit in a normal issue of the Meta Research Bulletin, and ordinarily
our readers would see only a truncated or shortened version of the article, or
one split between two issues. However, through the generosity of the a new
volunteer editor for the future print edition (to be introduced in our next
issue), the extra printing and mailing cost is being subsidized for this one issue
so that readers can get the article in its entirety. Future electronic issues
will have no length limitation imposed by the medium, and the subscription cost
of the print edition will be increased to cover the added printing and mailing
costs for longer issues.
Å Our feature article is a major review of the current
best evidence for the exploded planet hypothesis, its origin and history, and
its successful predictions that differentiate it from the several mainstream
hypotheses it would replace.
Å Meta Science
in the News has two articles, both
stimulated by stories in our “Specious Science” article in the previous issue.
The print medium did not allow us to show the striking new 3-D anaglyph of the
Cydonia Face on Mars. Now, two graphics experts have given us stereo pairs
viewable without special glasses. These images are what the ESA spacecraft
actually saw. By contrast, as reported to an SPSR member, an ESA official answering
questions about the distorted animation released to the media stated “these
products are for the general public and not meant to be a basis of scientific
interpretation.”
Å The second “News” story is a spoof article about the
consequences for the astronomical community in ignoring the public interest in
the classification of Pluto as a planet.
|
“Normal
science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all
their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows
what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives from
the community’s willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at
considerable cost. Normal science, for example, often suppresses fundamental
novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.
Nevertheless, as long as those commitments retain an element of the
arbitrary, the very nature of normal research insures that novelty shall not
be suppressed for very long.” –
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, communicated by Neil DeRosa |
|