sorry it was an american, not an englishman. I should reread my own posts. ;-) Harry
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't let this go. Last year I posted this revealing investigation > of how N-rays were "debunked" in > an unprofessional, psuedo-scientific manner. > > An englishman plays the role of chief debunker. > > You should read it jones. > Harry > > > > The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney > Phenomenon, > a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood > > Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 > > http://www.gesctm.unal.edu.co/CMS/Docentes/Adjuntos/099037209_20080313_054242_theatre%20of%20the%20blind.pdf > > > Abstract > One of the most notorious cases of full-blown scientific error is the > `non-existent' form of radiation known as `N-rays', discovered in the spring > of > 1903 by the French physicist Blondlot. After a short but full and interesting > life, N-rays were killed off (so the story goes) in the autumn of 1904 by the > American physicist Wood, who, after visiting Blondlot's laboratory in Nancy, > published in Nature a damning report of what he found (or didn't find). In > this > paper, I look at the way in which these events have been represented in > subsequent commentaries (including a later one of Wood's), concentrating > particularly on `the tale of the removal of the prism'. I also examine the > source of the effectiveness of Wood's `rhetoric of undiscovery' which I claim > lies in his construction and operation of a `theatre of the blind', in which > only we who were not there can see the nothing that is there. Throughout the > text, Wood's credibility as a reporter is questioned in the interest of > providing a symmetrically sceptical account of Wood's scientific claims and > status, as a counter to the standard story. > > Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 > >
