The Morning Summary, 6/20

Nice bump in traffic. It seems as though I have to put out more content in order to keep my numbers up. That may be a challenge going forward.

Yesterday, I wrote that I wanted to streamline the blog a bit. I'm still thinking about that, but in the meantime, I'll hope that you will notice a slight change in the header. It appears better than it did before, in my own opinion. Just a slight change in the wording can make a significant difference.

I will take another look at my "about the blog" section. This may need to be revamped a little too. You know, one thing about me is that I am not necessarily well organized. But I am willing to work at improving things. The blog has reflected that as it has indeed evolved over time and is getting better. That, unfortunately, hasn't translated into a bigger audience. Nevertheless, I am pleased with the progress.

Anyway, the last thing I did last night was to listen to the June 10th edition of the Space Show. Dr. Space's guest was Pharis Williams and the topic was about space time, sort of. This has interested me because that is what you will have to master next in order to do interstellar space travel. However, this discussion went a little differently than what I expected.

I didn't have time to listen to all of it, but there was something that caught my attention, and I want to discuss it here. It was only a brief mention, but it does fit into what was discussed at length with respect to the book by Huizenga on the topic of "cold fusion". As you may recall, Huizenga believes that he was defending science by his rather strong criticism of "cold fusion". One of the criticisms was the failure to follow the usual path of "peer review". This was what caught my attention. It seems that "peer review" is not always seen as a positive thing in that it can be something of a hindrance to progress at times.

Furthermore, the idea that science is pure was somewhat debunked in that discussion. It is also about money, power, prestige, and ego. Sounds pretty familiar, does it not? Science has been raised on some sort of pedestal, and it really isn't justified.

It has also gotten mixed up with politics. Now, instead of the church being the authority on science, it is now the government. This is not conducive with continual progress and improvement, in my opinion. If there is one thing that government doesn't do well and that is improve things. This will draw a protest from those who believe in government, but I'll have to respectfully disagree. All that governments really do is act as an agent of coercion. This does not necessarily lead to progress, but, to the contrary, it may well hinder it.