Why the Catt Anomaly must be ignored and why Theory
C must disappear from the record.
Men nearly always follow the tracks made
by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation, even though they
cannot entirely keep to the tracks of others or emulate the prowess of
their models. So a prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of
great men and imitate those who have been outstanding. If his own prowess
fails to compare with theirs, at least it has an air of greatness about
it.
I say, therefore, that in completely new
states, where the prince himself is a newcomer, the difficulty he encounters
in maintaining his rule is more or less serious insofar as he is more
or less able. And since the very fact that from being a private citizen
he has become a prince presupposes either ability or good fortune, it
would seem that one or other of these should to some extent lessen many
of the difficulties encountered.
Men who become rulers by prowess similar
to theirs acquire their principalities with difficulty but hold them with
ease. The difficulties they encounter in acquiring their principalities
arise partly because of the new institutions and laws they are forced
to introduce in founding the state and making themselves secure. It should
be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more
doubtful or success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating
changes in a state's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all
those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is
forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support
is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing
laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous,
never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience.
In consequence, whenever those who oppose the changes can do so, they
attack vigorously, and the defence made by the others is only lukewarm.
So both the innovator and his friends come to grief. But to discuss the
subject thoroughly we must distinguidh between innovators who stand alone
and those who depend on others, that is between those who to achieve their
purposes can force the issue and those who must use persuasion. In the
second case, they always come to grief, having achieved nothing; when,
however, they depend on their own resources and can force the issue, then
they are seldom endangered. That is why all armed prophets have conquered,
and unarmed prophets have come to grief. Besides what I have said already,
the populace is by nature fickle; it is easy to persuade them of something,
but difficult to confirm them in that persuasion. - Machiavelli,
The Prince, 1514, pub. Penguin 1995, p17
Machiavelli (M) discusses the procedure
by which a Prince secures and holds a country. The difficulty in applying
Machiavelli's theories to the attempted intrusion of a new scientific
theory into a scientific Establishment is that there are now more parties
involved. Whereas M's sole usurper was the would-be Prince, in our case
the Principality, or Scientific Establishment, faces both (1) the New
Theory and (2) the Author of the new theory. Obviously, M's nobles
represent the professors in our case, and M's 'people' represent the students
in our case (p30).
Let us try to modify Machiavelli so that
his theories map onto our case.
- 2Why the Catt Anomaly must be ignored and why Theory C must disappear
from the record.
Men nearly always follow the tracks made
by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation, even though they
cannot entirely keep to the tracks of others or emulate the prowess of
their models. So a prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of
great men and imitate those who have been outstanding. If his own prowess
fails to compare with theirs, at least it has an air of gratness about
it.
I say, therefore, that in completely new
theories, where the discoverer himself is a newcomer, the
difficulty he encounters in maintaining his theory is more or less
serious insofar as he is more or less able. And since the very fact that
from being a private citizen he has discovered a new theory presupposes
either ability or good fortune, it would seem that one or other of these
should to some extent lessen many of the difficulties encountered.
Men who become rulers by prowess similar
to theirs acquire their principalities with difficulty but hold them with
ease. The difficulties they encounter in acquiring their principalities
arise partly because of the new institutions and laws they are forced
to introduce in founding the state and making themselves secure. It should
be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more
doubtful or success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating
changes in a state's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all
those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is
forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new theory.
Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have
the existing patronage on their side, and partly because men are
generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have
tested them by experience. In consequence, whenever those who oppose the
changes can do so, they attack vigorously, and the defence made by the
others is only lukewarm. So both the innovator and his friends come to
grief. But to discuss the subject thoroughly we must distinguish between
innovators who stand alone and those who depend on others, that is between
those who to achieve their purposes can force the issue and those who
must use persuasion. In the second case, they always come to grief, having
achieved nothing; when, however, they depend on their own resources and
can force the issue, then they are seldom endangered. That is why all
armed prophets have conquered, and unarmed prophets have come to grief.
Besides what I have said already, the populace is by nature fickle; it
is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to confirm them in
that persuasion. [That is why the best argument for Theory C would
be for Catt to get Secker or Pepper fired.]
- with apologies to Machiavelli,
The Prince, 1514, pub. Penguin 1995, p17
We can now see that the disaster for Modern
Physics, and for science in general, is that hierarchy and status has
been bundled up with established theory. If only academics could have
acted as did the late Tom Ivall, the revered editor of Wireless World,
and seen themselves as administrators, or referees, overseeing the cut
and thrust of scientific advance and argument, then they would have been
able to survive the advent of Theory C or the Catt Anomaly. However, the
first few pages of The Prince convince me that as presently constructed,
a new theory can only take its proper place in today's academia by a process
of destruction and devastation. The parallels with M's analysis are too
close and the resulting auguries are devastating.
This analysis complements T S Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions., 1970 edn. In particular,
read p93; p96, 98. Progress is by way of destruction. But Kuhn limits
to destruction of theory, not of people as well, which is what we here
conclude is necessary.
The deep conclusion is that research is
incompatible with teaching. Research has to be open to new ideas, whereas
salaried, examination-directed teaching has to maintain appearances; the
pretence that the teacher knows what he is talking about, and is up to
date.
This discussion goes far beyond electromagnetic
theory or misconduct by Pepper, the then Master of Trinity, McEwan, Secker
and a whole host of others in the Academic Establishment. For a longer
Role of Dishonour, read The Catt Anomaly, on this website.
We have to conclude that before a new theory can take its rightful place
within today's academia, there has to be wholesale devastation of that
academic Establishment. According to M's analysis, the old theory brings
security and also patronage which the new theory does not. This political
fact has even infiltrated into the (pseudo) philosophy of Modern
Physics and thence of the whole of today's scientific Establishment. It
is called Instrumentalism, and is opposed by Popper (Conjectures
and Refutations, RKP 1969 edn. P100). They argue that no
theory is true; that the only value of a theory is in its practical results.
By now, we have to realise that from their point of view, the most important
practical result is not the correct prediction of experimental result,
but the protection of their incomes, promotion and prestige. A new theory
that they hardly understand offers them none of these, and, as M tells
us, they will fight it almost to the death.
I do so wish that people would stop telling
me to continue to be polite to these shysters. After all, they are taking
salary while blocking scientific advance and misleading their students.
I stayed polite for the first decade or two. Ivor Catt, 30jan99
|
