Science for Heretics: Why So Much of Science Is Wrong by Barrie Condon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This title, Science for Heretics, seemed to demand a review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration; nine unanimously 5-star reviews on amazon.com lent confirmation. But I was very disappointed in this book. Somewhere I’ve read about other work, “What’s true isn’t new and what’s new isn’t true,” and that applies here. There’s much sound criticism (in Chapters 2–6) of cosmology, quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory, chaos theory. Condon details the mutual incompatibility of relativity, gravity, and other continuous-field concepts with non-continuous concepts involving particles and quanta, and he points out that those incompatible views lead to directly conflicting conclusions about black holes. The book is also sound in criticizing accepted cosmological views that claim to understand much while asserting that 90% or more of the universe consists of things about which we know essentially nothing except that they are needed as fudge factors: dark matter and dark energy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".