THE DECEPTION TEMPTATION
The End of Scientific
Enlightenment ?
The
notion of ‘good and bad’ was part of a moral code inspired by the 10
commandments of the Bible, for instance: you shall not lie was one of
them, and since you would constantly be tempted to lie anyway (to take
advantage of others or brag about yourself etc.) you were told to learn how to
control the temptation to lie. The temptation was driven by the Devil himself,
whispering in your ears: do it..., no one will ever know…, it’s gonna be all
right! But every Sunday God himself would step down to sermon that you had
the choice to be a good person and say NO to the deception temptation.
WHY
SHOULD YOU?
whispered the Devil.
And
then came the learning of science principles, the QED SCIENTIFIC PROOF, more
powerful than the 10 commandments: you don’t need to lie to convince, you just
need to prove it. This was demonstrated by Descartes and Newton and became the
Age of Enlightenment, then by Einstein and Feynman and millions of others to
become the era of REASON.
REALLY...
REALLY? whispered
the Devil who hastily prepared new tools to mess around all this good will.
Fast
forward to the TRUMP and POUTIN century with its panoply of fine tuned
instruments of deception: Mirrors, Illusions, Video fake montages, Propaganda,
Disinformation, Fake News, Deep Fakes, Self-paid Publications etc., with as
primary result the disorientation in people’s mind: who tells the TRUTH?
All
these deception tools were rapidly endorsed and mastered by the industry and by
the governments, legitimized under the disguise of sales promotion information,
publicity, marketing, information mixed with entertainment etc.
Disinformation
practices have nowadays infiltrated all aspects of our life, even the Justice
system that has finally surrendered to the practice of overpaid lawyers helping
their clients lie under oath. No wonder the Courts have become the playground
of the rich and famous at the expense of Justice for all!
THANK
YOU… whispered the
Devil!...GLAD TO BE OF SERVICE!
Someone
argues back:
But deception is not in science… scientists…you know…those are the incorruptible
pillars of the search for the TRUTH!.
OH YEH?… jubilated the Devil…CHECK MY LATEST ACHIEVEMENT BELOW:
I have suggested for the last decade to the polymer scientific community to abandon the current paradigm of polymer physics that is used to describe the molecular dynamics of macromolecules. Essentially, this paradigm consists of two models: the Rouse model and the reptation model. There are, of course, ramifications and improvements that have been applied to modify these models. Yet, I have exposed the problems and deficiencies of the current paradigm to explain old and new experimental evidence that have been validated by other independent researchers, in particular the “sustained orientation” property of Rheo-Fluidified melts that totally contradicts the current molecular dynamics paradigm [1].
The fundamental question that I address in my books [1-5] relates to the statistical treatment of the interactions between macromolecules that should be applied to polymers: whether the classic Boltzmann’s statistics of systems made up of macromolecules should be used (this solution is the classical approach that led to the current paradigm), or another statistical model and another statistical system should be considered?
I define and explore in my research the use of a dissipative statistical description of the interactions, the Grain-Field Statistics, to quantitatively describe the viscoelastic behavior of polymers. This is the objective of the new paradigm taught and disseminated by the New School Polymer Physics [1-5].
In his famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” [6], Thomas Kuhn identified the 3 criteria that define the strategy of current paradigm’s gate keepers to oppose the dissemination of a new paradigm challenging their established one:
“- 1 rejection by impossibility to leave behind the previous paradigm,
- 2 accept the disruptive necessity for a change but find it very hard to adapt to the new paradigm.
- 3 attempt to sabotage by deception the new paradigm to prevent its dissemination”
Amazingly, the review process of my 1st book [1] led to confirm these 3 statements “by the book”.
One reviewer, a famous rheologist, candidly said ” ...my mind is not able to bend around your ideas. My upbringing was influenced by the classical concepts of Rouse, Graessley, de Gennes, etc, so it is difficult for me to understand and agree with some of your ideas...”. Kuhn’s criteria #1
A second reviewer, PhD, MBA, advisor to Coorporate Research Companies, approved the necessity of a change of paradigm in polymers and expressed enthousiastically the industrial perspectives of the sustained-orientation technology, he wrote:
“...with this new cross-dual phase model, Dr Ibar is able to explain the physics of polymer molecules, and particularly the rheology, and entanglement and disentanglement behaviours.
But he also added:”This book is not for the faint-hearted. It is both a complex, difficult read, and yet at the same time, exciting-brimming over with new concepts and ideas, almost mind-bending! ” .Kuhn’s criteria #2. The full review is available in Ref. 7.
A third reviewer, the former Dean of a well established German University Plastic Processing Department, might have not been aware that his response would be transparent to Kukn’s 3rd way of fighting a new paradigm: sabotage by deception. Obviously, the Devil had whispered in his ears and could be satisfied of his pupil! Kuhn’s criteria #3.
I invite you to read my rebuttal of the paper published by this 3rd reviewer in the Journal of Rheology (JOR) by clicking on the link below:
Not only do I rebute one by one the various misrepresentations left uncorrected in this Journal, but I explain the difference of interpretations of Shear-Refinement of polymer melts by the classical views (orchestrated by the 3rd reviewer) and by the New School Polymer Physics’ approach to viscoelasticity.
Tell me:
- Why
would a scientist of great notoriety, publishing in a reputable science
journal, need to deliberately publish false information to undermine the
credibility of new research contradicting his convictions? Why would he, the former
Dean of his Department, denigrate the results by misquoting them, even a few
times by deliberately distorting the facts? What was his real intention in
using deception to disqualify the credibility of the results presented in a
book1 he had accepted to review (and had accepted to discuss with
the author)?
-
Why
would the prestigious Journal not invite the discriminated author of the book
as one of the reviewers of Munstedt’s paper when he submitted it? Is it not
customary and fair to offer an author attacked in a paper to become a reviewer
of the paper?
-
Why
would the Editorial Board members of the Journal in which the notorious
Professor published the deception stay mute when they were made aware of a
rebuttal request by the author? Even if
it is true that the deception was disguised, subtle, and not apparent at first
glance, the deception was revealed explicitly in the rebuttal article (now
published as GJSFR A22.5(2022):21-31), documenting that it was not a
divergence of opinion, that the author of the deception knew the facts
but deliberately chose to misquote or distort them. The peer review system can only be fair if it
remains uncompromised.
Is it not obvious that the real reasons to
disparage my work on the shear-induced melt instability of linear polymers
(resulting in “disentanglement”, see Ch. 4 of my book1) is to avoid
the discussion on the failure of the molecular models to comprehend it (Chs. 6,
7) and the need for a change of paradigm in polymer physics to understand
entanglements (Ch. 1, 2).
And is it not true that the Editorial Board
Members of the Journal were all siding with the notorious author to defend the
current paradigm that my book claimed was deficient?
QED: KUHN’S ARGUMENT # 3 :
“SABOTAGE BY DECEPTION TO PREVENT ITS
DISSEMINATION” IS THE REASON FOR H. MUNSTEDT’S FALSE INSERTIONS.
Here is how
I concluded my letter sent to the Board Members of the journal ( Journal of
Rheology) who found futile reasons to refuse to print my rebuttal:
“It is
crucial that scientists doubt the results of others and it is of course
acceptable to disagree with someone else‘s conclusions, but it is unacceptable
to use deception to refute what one disagrees with”.
President
Biden said recently (paraphrasing):
“It
is the end of Democracy, yes the end of Democracy… if the contestants in an
election only accept to win and accuse the winner of fraud if they lose.”
Likewise,
it is the end of Science if the people in charge of disseminating and
protecting the scientific method of enlightenment only accept to protect the
existing paradigms and accuse the contradicting data of artifacts, even of
fraud.
It
is the end of the power of Science if the people in charge of disseminating and
protecting the scientific method of enlightenment are systematically and
deliberately censor-shipping the publication of results that prove the failures
and short-comings of the established paradigms to cover- up the possibility
that they are incomplete or simply wrong!
Yes,
it is the end of the credibility of Science if the people in charge of
disseminating and protecting the scientific method of enlightenment are accepting
the insertion of unanswered false information in their publications and the use
of deception tactics in their peer review administration.
SHOULD
SCIENCE STAY OUTSIDE MY REACH, THEN? ....pleaded the Devil...
3. Ibar J.P. , “Dual-Phase Rheology. A New Understanding of Viscoelasticity in Polymers.” De Gruyter Book (2023)
4. Ibar J.P. ” Dual-Phase Crystallization. Dissipative Interactive Coupling between the amorphous and Crystalline states.”, De Gruyter Book (2024).
5. Ibar J.P. ” Grain-Field Statistics of Dissipative Interactions”, De Gruyter’s Book (2025)
6. Kuhn T. S. ” The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, University of Chicago Press, 3rd Edition (1996).
8. Rebuttal to H. Munstedt JOR paper" Mechanical Pre-Treatments of Polymer Melts" 2021)
