Censorship and Suppression – the New Scientific Clergy
For the people who knew the Soviet Communist era it is common knowledge that the party line did not tolerate any dissident voices or criticism. Often mentioned as an effigy for our developed and democratic society, one is under the impression that these methods of suppression are relics of the past. Probably in some third world countries but not in the civilized Western World, no, that is impossible to happen.
But it did. Several times in the last decades.
On Jan 12, 2013 Rupert Sheldrake gave a speech on a controversial topic “The Science Delusion”. Since the talk was organized by TED Whitechapel, they soon realized they have crossed the border of “accepted” materialistic paradigm and suddenly removed the talk from their channel. Rupert discussed the fact that science as a world view takes precedence over evidence and investigation. The dominant consensus view is that philosophical materialism is the underlying principle of all scientific endeavors. What he was trying to convey is that the spirit of enquiry is stifled in the scientific circles.
Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed
In his film Ben Stein interviewed several professors and proponents of Intelligent Design – all of them holding degrees, professors or teachers. We would naturally think that these type of discussions would be settled in a friendly environment, using sound logic and evidence. That wasn’t the case with the majority of the people interviewed. Some of them lost their job, while others faced fierce attacks and ridicule. The culture of discussions and disputes, that used to be part of the Ancient Greece life, were at the heart of the intellectual activities of our ancestors. It is sad to encounter that in our century we lost this valuable gift.
Climate Change Agenda
Totalitarian regime is established in the modern universities? Professor Peter Ridd raised his voice and questioned research showing human-caused impact. Guess what happenned after, he was sacked from James Cook University for breach of code of conduct. Scientific consensus doesnot tolerate dissent voices and obviously the institution acted swiftly. However, common people realised that what is at stake in the court is freedom of speech and academic freedom.
He did not give up and launched a crowdfunding initiative to fund his fight against the former employer.
In April 2019 the court ruled that the actions of the university were unlawful, Peter Ridd received $1.2m compensation. The university appealed – the battle is still raging.
These cases illustrate that the modern science through its institutions: universities, schools, private corporations no longer tolerates debate and opposition.
Are we allowed to question the paradigm? It is understandable that people fear losing their jobs and prestige but it is crucial for us to see through the fog.