To the Editor of BioEssays
(For publication)

THREAT TO BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE

Sir,

Robin Hollidays essay "The incompatibility of Poppers philosophy of
science with genetics and molecular biology" (BioEssays 21.10:890-891) amply
demonstrated the truth of this controversial but important proposition. In
fact unlike physicists, several biologists (especially evolutionists) have
long had vehement objections to Poppers teachings. (For example: Beverly
Halstead, "Karl Popper: good philosophy, bad science", New Scientist, 17
July 1980, 215-217; Mark Parascandola "Scientific reasoning in an imperfect
world", BioEssays 19.09:745-746.)

In a Letter in New Statesman & Society (11 September 1992) responding to
Richard Dawkinss critical review article of Richard Miltons book The Facts
of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Fourth Estate, 1992)
Christopher Potter (the then editorial director of Fourth Estate) declared
himself a "good Popperian" and went on to state:

"That Darwinism is held in such a low esteem by workers in more
philosophically rigorous fields of science ought to give Darwinists pause
for thought."

Indeed it ought to. All biologists ought to look critically into those
allegedly more philosophically rigorous fields of science that gave rise
to Popperism, and consequently to the rejection of Darwinism. There is a
clue in Hollidays essay as to what the origin of the problem is:

"Most philosophers of science, including Popper, take their examples from
physics. There is no discussion of chemistry or biology in [Poppers] The
Logic of Scientific Discovery."

In fact Popper himself (in all his publications) is much more specific
concerning the one very influential individual physicist from whose ideas
Popper was originally inspired, and remained permanently under their spell.
It is Albert Einstein.

In the 27 February 1998 issue of the London Times Literary Supplement,
biologist Paul R. Gross remarked: "Argument rages in such unexpected places
as the Journal of General and Internal Medicine over the possibility of
objective research." ("Postmodernism and the neoconservatives", p. 17) But
biologists, medics, and others cannot complain that they were not amply
forewarned. Since 1977 I naturally addressed my warnings to everyone, but I
especially directed them to those whose primary professional objective must
positively be the determination and the establishment of truth by using the
objective method of science. In this respect (concerning the rejection of
"the possibility of objective research"), in "Where science has gone wrong"
(Nature Vol. 333, 2 June 1988, p. 389) I (with M. Psimopoulos) specifically
mentioned "scientists and philosophers" (in whose disciplines postmodernist
relativism - as presently shown - originated) and also (and I quote)
"historians, physicians, journalists, police officers, and so on".
Regrettably, my warnings were then universally ignored, to the further
detriment of our entire contemporary post-modern society, but especially the
above professions. It is not too late to be heeded now.

"The One True Tree of Life" is the title of Chapter 10 of Richard Dawkins's
The Blind Watchmaker (1986). In this Dawkins expresses his profound
bafflement and anger that many biologists have either questioned or rejected
what he perfectly correctly described as "The ONE TRUE Tree of Life" in
Darwinian evolution. The explication of Dawkins's puzzlement is this:
These biologists (like Popper before them) simply tried to emulate the
methods of the eminent and influential physicists who had earlier rejected
the ONE TRUE nature of light (and electrons, etc); and still earlier
rejected the ONE TRUE coordinate system of reference. I explained the
fallacies in the flawed methods of the eminent and influential physicists
(and the resulting cultural damage) in:
T. Theocharis, "What Is An Electron?", Wireless World, Vol. 85, pp. 71-72,
October 1979;
"Is Light Velocity A Constant?", Wireless World, Vol. 87, p. 58, May 1981;
"Science and Society", Wireless World, Vol. 87, No. 1546, p. 52, July 1981;
"Planetary Motion", Physics Education, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 148-149, July
1982;
"On Maxwells Ether", Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 36, No. 11, pp.
325-332, 12 Marzo 1983;
"Is There a Scientific Method?", Education in Chemistry Vol. 20, 1983, pp.
120-121;
"Does the Earth Really Move?", Indian Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol.
33, No. 5, pp. 61-74, 1985;
"Reality Defended", Search Vol. 13, No. 1, 1987, p. 46;
"Where Science Has Gone Wrong", Nature ,Vol. 329, 1987, pp. 595-598; Vol.
333, 1988, p. 389;
"On the Method and Scope of Research", In: Belardinelli, E. (editor), Imola
Conference on University and Research, Edizioni Martello, Bologna, 1988, pp.
157-192;
"Where the West Has Gone Wrong", Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 6, 1989,
pp. 249-250;
"Rationalism Betrayed", Ethical Record, Vol. 96, December 1991/January 1992,
pp. 4-11;
"Diurnal Terrestrial Aberration of Light", Speculations in Science and
Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 72-76, 1992;
"Problems With Galileo", Nature, Vol. 363, p. 108, 13 May 1993;
"The Indispensability of Truth", Index On Censorship, No. 4, pp. 8-9, 1999.

Therefore, if any chemists, biologists, medics (and others) wish to really
understand the dire threat to their disciplines, then they will have to
understand some basic physics as well as some basic philosophy.

Theo Theocharis
200A Merton Road,
London SW18 5SW,
England.
0181-8706191
TheoTheocharis@hotmail.com


______________________________________________________




>From: Dr Adam S Wilkins <
awilkins@bioessays.demon.co.uk>
>To: "Theocharis Theocharis" <
theotheocharis@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Letter on Popper
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:37:17 +0000
>
>Dear Dr Theocharis,
> With regret, I have to say that we are not going to publish your
>letter. It is shorter, and I appreciate your efforts to make it so, but it
>is still tangential to the main point of Robin Holliday's article. Indeed,
>it still looks like an attempt to use Holliday's article as a pretext for
>attacking Einstein through Popper. Both Einstein and Popper may well
>deserve the kind of criticisms you level but a) those criticisms are not
>clear to me (nor to my assistant, Dr Adams) from the letter itself, and b)
>this is not the right place to be making them.
> I am sorry but this decision is final.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Adam S. Wilkins
>
>Dr Adam S Wilkins
>Editor, BioEssays
>10/11 Tredgold Lane
>Napier Street
>CAMBRIDGE
>CB1 1HN
>UK
>TEL (01223) 357542 FAX (01223) 359761
>



Dear Drs Wilkins & Adams

THREAT TO BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
I am sorry that my submission to BioEssays evidently caused you so much
irritation and anxiety. I feel obliged to let you know that, frankly, I do
not believe that my criticisms of Einstein and Popper are not clear to you.
Frankly, my long experience on these vexing matters induces me to believe
that you are scared stiff to publish any criticism of Einstein. I much
regret that, in my duty to uphold the correct principles of science, I may
have to cause you a little more inconvenience and discomfort.

Yours very sincerely

Theo Theocharis

Ivor Catt. 21dec99

Wave-particle dualism places Mystery at the centre of Modern Physics (MP), making MP a religion. Similarly, them Trinity mystery establishes xianity as a religion.

My story at the centre of a thesis render the thesis irrefutable. Thus Popper would say that MP is unscientific.

Late in life, Popper started to say that the likes of Heisenberg were philosophically incompetent. They has strayed into philosophy in order to buttress MP.