Peratt disagreement with Thornhill?

[Morphix]

Just wondering if anyone here knows the reason why Anthony Peratt, author of the invaluable "Physics of the Plasma Universe," distances himself from Wal Thornhill's Electric Universe http://www.holoscience.com site? I ask this after seeing the following disclaimer on Peratt's Plasma Electric Universe http://www.plasmauniverse.info homepage: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'."

Peratt seems to be in the general camp of the electric universe revolution, so just curious what the story may be. Seems like a shame not to have so prominent a plasma scientist on good terms.

[D_Archer]

pressure

[ZPinch]

I just took a look. Peratt must have a disagreement on some new directions Thunderbolts is going, which is forward, so I don't know. I don't know why it says 'anti-science', couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Morphix]

Well, I went to Thornhill's Holoscience links page at http://www.holoscience.com/wp/links/, and he says the following by his link to Paratt's website: "The Plasma Universe Website of Anthony Peratt, author of Physics of the Plasma Universe. [N.B. The disclaimer is merely Political (in)Correctness.] http://plasmauniverse.info/"

I guess Thornhill has a good attitude and is a gentleman, which I find to be admirable and the sign of a true scientist. It is amazing how many scientists are run by their emotions and social pressure to the point of blindness.

[Morphix]

More broadly, I wonder if it wouldn't do some good for scientists to take required courses in philosophy of science, particularly on the role that social pressure and psycholgy plays in misdirecting the progress of science. This sort of objectification of the way scientists work, the scientism pitfalls, the resistance to anomalies, the danger of working backwards from abstract, mathematical models rather than from evidence, etc., would be a great addition to their training in specific fields.

Of course, the textbooks for such classes would have to be written and the classes scheduled, and that would be a great threat to the status quo. Maybe a big shake up in cosmology and the fresh (painful) lessons learned will provide the opportunity for such progressive teaching and learning.

[promethean]

A few months ago I noticed that disclaimer...looking further I found a "creationist" website similar in name to the
"holoscience" site and assumed that it was the subject of Peratt's disclaimer. ( of course I cannot locate it now..)
It was anti-science ,that I can remember !

[MGmirkin]

Can't comment much, as I don't know "first hand," but 2nd hand info says in part pressure from pseudo-skeptics going after Peratt, and partly some notion on Peratt's part that there's not enough "maths" in the EU camp or some avoidance of "guilt-by-association" (with both of which some might might speciously try to attack Peratt's overall credibility, historically, as an expert in the field of plasma physics). I think also at least in part to note that LANL is "independent" and he was/is an "independent researcher" who is not under anyone's "direction and control" as it were. His research and likewise his agenda is his own, whether or not anyone in our group thinks it supports their position.

Just as we can't control is young-Earthers decide that the EU "supports their position" and ramble on about it, Peratt can't control whether we think his work supports our position and ramble on about it. If that makes sense... Kind of a "don't blame ME, for things THEY say that I don't necessarily agree with."

Just my 2c. Completely not-first-hand, so take it was a few bags of salt... Maybe a nice Salt Lake? I dunno.

[tayga]

From the research point of view, I would be surprised if every researcher in a growing field agreed with every other and I don't believe that theoretical disagreement is a bad thing. As long as people are willing to offer theories for falsificaiton, the Popper ideal of Science can be upheld.

My own view on the Peratt disclaimer is that it is political. Michael's views on the independence of LANL notwithstanding, I don't think that any scientific institution is wholly independent of some pressure to follow guidelines, spoken or unspoken. Given Peratt's positive contribution to the work of Dave Talbott, for example, a little bit of distance could be seen as a positive thing. That is to say there is more scientific value in unsolicited corroboration than there is in conspiracy and consensus.