KosmicKat
31st July 2011, 20:36
The last convincing argument I have heard recently for continuing the "Truth Embargo" was that the scientific community (and by extension, the public who enjoy the benefits of scientific progress) would have a very hard time accepting a new paradigm that, for some of them, would toss a lifetime's efforts into the wastebasket (cf. the Brookings Report) undermining principles that have been accepted for centuries and used as the basis of new research for decades.
However, in the course of learning those ideas which led me to this point, I am also convinced that somebody has already introduced this paradigm to a tightly limited and controlled sector of the scientific community.
If the knowledge that so many of us have been searching for, and accepting as we find it, were made public would the outcome really be as bad as we have been told?
However, in the course of learning those ideas which led me to this point, I am also convinced that somebody has already introduced this paradigm to a tightly limited and controlled sector of the scientific community.
If the knowledge that so many of us have been searching for, and accepting as we find it, were made public would the outcome really be as bad as we have been told?