Contained from last post
This is a point where we must continue to differ. He reports examples where people fear to take certain measurements because that might show the effects he describes, and he reports the difficulties he had in getting his work published, etc. That isn't a minor matter. Without it, it is almost certain that this phenomenon (or statistical anomaly!) would have attracted much more interest within the lifetime of Halton Arp. I fear it will now be quietly lost.
A few things to note here, both to the specific case and to the broader issue this raises.
On the specific case some questions that should be answered before reaching a conclusion here. (Note, these aren't rhetorical, I don't know most of the answers). Also, I'm sure there are elements I've left out so please feel free to add.
Re the measurements:
- from which paper of his is he referring?
- Were they referenced by critics in other publications (including both peer and non peer reviewed)
- is it true that no one else applied them?
- If so, we're reasons provided?
- How does he reach the conclusion that the reluctance of his critiques was primarily due to fear that he was correct? Is he guessing? Did someone admit this?
Re difficulties getting published
- how does his hit rate in being published compare to others?
- How many other submissions was he generally competing against
- Were reasons given? Fundamental errors noted, etc? What were the circumstances?
- Are there reasons, other than prejudice, that could account for the papers not being published?
In terms of generating interest if more papers were published:
- How much interest did the papers he did get published attract?
- How many papers were actually published?
- How about other writings, lectures, etc.
- How much attention did they receive? How broadly know did his hypothesis come
- How many other researchers have followed his line?
- What reason is there to suppose that additional papers would have been any better received?
Incidentally, I did a google scholar search on halton arp and got 1700 hits. I'm sure not all are on point but even adding "redshift" in I still get more than 800. Many of them have dozens, if not 100s of citations (with a few being cited more than 1000 times). I'm not claiming this as a reliable stats, but skimming it certainly gives the impression of a person whose works are pretty well out there.
I'm not suggesting that he may not have been treated unfairly at times - or that some people weren't jerks towards him - but despite thay he appears to have been prolific and oft cited. I have not doubt that he thinks he merits more attention, but what exactly should our criteria be for considering someone to have been ignored or not given due consideration?
I'm not looking to excuse bad behaviour (I'm a strong advocate for civility as you know), or the times where he wasn't published or given access, just treating it as a separate issue from an analysis of what actually was published by him and others in the scientific community addressing his work. That it, is could be both true that he's been mistreated in some ways, but also true that his work did get a lot of attention and was not ignored. If that's the case, then we have to ask, at what point should we consider it legitimate to stop devoting resources to lines of work that have not been well received by the general scientific community? And where Arp's line of research should be considered in that context?
The other thing I want to emphasise, is that his theory, if accepted, would be highly destructive of a large body of work - people's whole career's - because it would render all the distance measurements on the inter-galactic scale extremely unreliable. This is a major problem - it would take an almost superhuman effort for researchers to treat this subject dispassionately.
This is the real point, that applies to this case as to many others - the pressure on people to conform is huge.
I hear where you are coming from, but I think we need to put it in perspective.
There is absolutely no question that people are naturally biased in favour of their pre-existing beliefs. My position, however, is that this applies to everyone, to each of us, not just to one group. It applies to halton arp, his critics, to you, and to me. The problem is ubiquitous and must be approached as such. We tend to think of it as a moral deficiency, but really it is part of the human condition. And it can have positive as well as negative effects.
Sure there are in groups and outgroups, where in groups often get more of their fair share and are treated better. But changing those groups up isn't likely to solve the problem, it's just going to mix it up. Paradigm changes don't get rid of this dynamic, they just shake it up.
It gets even more complicated than this, because there aren't just two groups, there are many many groups. And people often belong to more than one of them. And in some contexts being part of a group makes one part of the ingroup, and in another context being part of the same group makes them part of the outgroup! And then there are subgroups within the groups, with their own in and out group dynamics!
And yes, people are protective of their territory. It's not just a question of dogma or bias, but also one of limited resources. Of course scientists are going to try and protect their turf - there are only so many research dollars out there and if person A gets a grant that means person B didn't. This doesn't just happen between ingroups and outgroups, but within each group as well. There's little reason to believe that paradigm change would change that dynamic.
It applies in the case of ψ. Any admission of the reality of evidence of ψ would be a real shock to science - suppose that the results of experiments are partly determined by the wishes of the experimenters - just think about that proposition for a moment!
We've talked a lot about the inherent bias of people, but there's also a competing instinct that people have: curiosity, a drive towards discovery, excitement of discovering something new. How many scientists dream of being the next Einstein? To make that great discovery that changes everything? Sure individual scientists may not feel great when their work is overturned, but that's a regular feature of science as it progresses. Judges don't like being overturned on appeal either.
When previous work is overturned, those scientists don't just quit right (absent allegations of fraud or retirement, etc.) They don't say, well, let's shut down shop! They evolve with the discoveries.
New discoveries create new opportunities for people to make their marks. It keeps them interested in their work.
So what we see is a balance of two basic drives, both which serve a purpose: The bias towards existing believes enhances stability. Slow change is smoother, and less callamatous to a society (think the blood drenched french revolution compared to the bloodless quiet revolution of Britain). Being too susceptible to new ideas can lead to fickleness and indecision, and reduce focus. Setting high bars for change helps weed out bad ideas.
The drive for change and new discoveries leads to innovation, progress, stimulation, expansion, creativity.
Both are essential for a well functioning society, the upshot is they often clash.
The point is, in order to make things better we have to properly understand what's going on. Doing so helps us stop seeing each other as enemies, and helps us realize that competition of ideas is a good thing. We want a diversity of opinion in society. We want people to have to compete for their ideas to prevail. It's not always going to be smooth sailing, and there will be winners and losers, but overall the system seems to work.
This is how we repair the bad behaviour. It can help us stop thinking of the other as evil idiots, stop obsessing over motives, and actually focus on the substance of these matters.