05 Apr UM Response – “In Defense of Peer-reviewed Science”
By: The UM Team
In response to an advertisement regarding the Universal Model, members of BYU’s Department of Geological Sciences offered their opinion about new discoveries published in the Universal Model, A New Millennial Science. Click here to view that article (page 4, “In defense of peer-reviewed science”). With the incredible discoveries and extraordinary claims included in the UM, we expect lively feedback from students and professors from the universities in our area and there is no surprise they find these new scientific evidences challenging. Fear of change has often caused men of letters to critique rather than to analyze new paradigm-changing discoveries. The Universal Model stands by the principle, “Question Everything with an Open Mind” to arrive at a fitting conclusion about scientific discovery; inquirers must examine the evidence after setting their emotions aside.
For many years our Earth held a position at the center of our Solar System until proven false with new empirical, scientific evidence. Just because a theory is taught for ‘generations’ as fact, that alone does not make it credible or true when the observable evidence shows otherwise. The purpose of science is to question, research, experiment, and make observations, to discover new natural laws. When it comes down to it, YOU the reader form your own opinions about what is true and what is false. We remind our readers and critics that the Universal Model is not a religious book but is a secular science book based on experimentation and observation. Chauncey C. Riddle, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at BYU said that the critics of the Universal Model “will be ignoring this work and discouraging others from reading it. Just as the politicians in charge try to marginalize everyone who is not ‘politically correct,’ so will influential members of the science community try to ignore and belittle this work. But every honest seeker after truth will relish the opportunity to think freshly about important scientific matters, in a refined paradigm of science, and with new facts and laws to ponder.”
On April 6th, 7th and 8th at the UCCU Event Center in Orem, Utah the following speakers will share their expertise on a variety of revolutionary new discoveries from the Universal Model: Dean W. Sessions, Rod L. Meldrum, Russell H Barlow, Brooke E McKay, Boyd Tuttle, Jonathan Neville, Chauncey Riddle, David Allen, Lareme Fessler, Jacob Householder, and Carter Brown.
Allan WadePosted at 23:46h, 12 April
The Universal Model is certainly open for peer review now. I hope each of those who spoke out “In defense of peer-reviewed science” will do it. It is true that the extraordinary claims go against modern science as it is currently taught in our universities. Yet they can now study the arguments, test the experiments, and investigate the extraordinary evidence for themselves.
josephomorrowPosted at 15:13h, 18 September
They say “peer review” but they usually mean “peer pressure”, often with open or veiled threats of life-changing consequences. Therefore, the stage has now been set for true heroes to shine forth by means of hard work and perseverance. This is opportunity for all of our minds to be set free to truly think for ourselves, and to pass on those Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.
canadaehPosted at 21:35h, 29 April
The challenge that UM faces is that unlike Galileo it is not attempting to turn upside down a theologically based understandings of the physical world (e.g., geocentric universe) but rather various understandings believed by scientists to be scientifically established. It’s unrealistic to expect a warm welcome when you’re basic message is “many things you think are scientifically established are in fact false”. If UM is right it will ultimately prevail but its proponents are in for a rough ride. They should expect no better a reception than Galileo got.
I haven’t read the BYU article about peer-reviewed science. But I will just say that the desire of many researchers to have positive feedback from peer review probably promotes a conformity in science that stifles the risk taking that is often necessary to overturn the existing scientific consensus.
josephomorrowPosted at 15:06h, 18 September
There is not much to read in the BYU article. It’s more like a petition than an article, the undersigned pledging their loyalty to theory over and above firsthand observations, hard evidence, and repeatable experiments. It is very difficult for the modern mind to change, robbed of most of its spine and thick skin by modern “education”.