Member

Based on the one star reviews of this book I expected a "creationist rehash." As a biologist trained in animal behavor I read nothing of the kind. Milton's arguments are clear and well argued; he is at his best at demonstrating the circular and nonexplanatory arguments used to keep neo-Darwinian "theory" viable. A previous negative review tells the reader to go and read a book on Darwin's finches--Milton devotes a full chapter to the arguments for "speciation" taken from the finch research. The finches of the different islands mate with one another and are not geograpically isolated from one another--while their beaks may differ in size and shape the finches are no more separate species than a poodle is a separate species from a bull dog. Variation within a species does not prove neo-Darwinism as "the origin of the species." To the potential reader and Mr. Milton (if he reads these reviews), I would urge a review of the most recent research of Hall on the specificity of adaptive mutagenesis and a reading of Ted Steels's new book "Lamarck's Signature" on retrogenes. Both lines of research are mentioned briefly by Milton--I believe a third edition incorporating these new theories and findings is needed. Milton looks like a young man--I hope he keeps up the search for truth in evolutionary biology gives us a new edition of this important work.

In this compelling tour through the world of anomalous research, Richard Milton makes clear what the scientific establishment takes pains to deny: plenty of hard experimental evidence already exists for such things as cold fusion, paranormal phenomena, bioenergy, and the effectiveness of alternative medicine. Because these subjects and those who dare to investigate them are continually denied legitimacy by what can only be called the "paradigm police," the public is led to believe that all claims made about such topics are completely groundless. With humor and an eye for the telling detail, the author describes many instances when the defenders of scientific orthodoxy acted with unscientific rigidity in the face of the evidence. Faraday, Roentgen, Edison, and even the Wright Brothers were thought to be charlatans by their contemporaries. Taking the broad view of the way science is done, Milton discusses the forces at work in the marginalization of unorthodox research, and makes the reader wonder if there is not something fundamentally wrong with the way that science is currently being practiced.

Many readers are shocked to learn that there exists an orthodoxy within the scientific community that viciously attacks theories outside the mainstream, as well as those scientists daring to research "heretical" ideas. The objectivity inherent in the scientific method cannot control human biases and machinations, however. Science has its share of fanatical, dogmatic defenders of "accepted truth" whose inquisitorial skills are neatly disguised through technical jargon and reductionist logic. Richard Milton succinctly exposes this world and deflates the popular myth that all science is conducted objectively.

This excellent book reveals how theories once summarily (and often cruelly) dismissed by the scientific establishment were later definitively proven through experimentation, demonstration, and replication (i.e., the scientific method). The author also presents many currently heretical theories that, despite repeated experimental validation, remain condemned by the scientific orthodoxy. Lovers of open-minded investigations will appreciate this book's reminder to search for ulterior motives when evaluating criticisms of someone's research. Fairness and objectivity, the author suggests, are essential in evaluating any theories. Be alert, though, when subjectivity taints the scientific ideal.

There is no doubt some areas of research are to some degree taboo, I mean, not even looked at because it is considered too far from the mainstream or too "way out" in the sense of UFO cults or seances. Any "self-respecting" scientist would not dare to discuss such things seriously with other scientists or in public. What do I include in such "pseudo-science" ? Well we don't even have to leave the mainstream to do so, the research carried out by Jacques Benveniste comes to mind, a thoroughly and deeply investigated area on the possibility of water carrying some sort of memory, not only has this been shown to have theoretical support apart from the conclusive experimental evidence but it has simply been taken as the work of a charlatan or cheat because it could not possibly be "right", as another example, a scientist whose name I won't use to ensure his privacy, has developed a theory in physics which is not considered because it is not following the approaches of other scientists and so must be wrong. Science and also mathematics is full of this sort of negative, and lets put a fine point on it, unscientific opinions. In other words these rejections of the new are just that a rejection of anything new which either may show the reviewer's own work may be faulty, out of date or his group is no longer safe and secure, whether this means job security or just the security related to the self image. Is this scientific ? Unfortunately the academic comunity is still full of power play and little empires no matter how trivial just so the egos are boosted and they are safe in their little world. Am I being too harsh ? Well it may be so but I have experienced enough of this sort of thing to say that at times this is true. What happened to the spirit of scientific discovery which, as can be seen from history, continuously has to either battle the status quo or wait until the opposition are dead ? Milton in this timely book talks about these very problems still present in science, in no way does he carry on with dubious arguments which flog their own horses eg Creation Science but rather investigates an area thoroughly and asks some important questions, much as Feyerabend has done in his work although the topic concerns the basis of science rather than any research studied, I think he may have been able to get away with this more than scientists actually working in new areas because it concerns the philosophy of science and as such is comfortably removed from "the truth" which is supposed to be represented by orthodox science. So, Milton has produced an essential read for scientists and non-scientists which hopefully will have the courage to support their fellow scientists in such endeavours. - Frank Bierbrauer, amazon