"The books, lectures, and articles that Dewey Larson left behind offer exhilarating food for thought even for readers with modest scientific training. His writings challenge us to think critically and not take anything for granted."

--Richard Heinberg, “The Smartest Person I've Met,” Museletter, No. 183, July 2007

"If my work does nothing else in the long run, it will at least accomplish a worth-while purpose in calling attention to such weaknesses in present-day theory. This is probably what Dr. Fracastoro of the Catania Astrophysical Observatory had in mind when he concluded a review of my book in the journal 'Scientia' with the statement: 'The work furnishes a useful exercise for those who wish to review objectively their scientific ideas and beliefs.'"

--Dewey B. Larson, letter to astrophysicist Martin Harwit, August 30, 1961, citing Mario Girolama Fracastoro's review of The Structure of the Physical Uiverse, in Scientia (Bologna, Italy), Vol. 95 (1960), p. 299

"As an iconoclastic work, Larson's book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field."

--Isaac Asimov, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical and Engineering News, July 29, 1963

"Mr. Larson shows himself to be well-informed on the current status of physics research and there is very little in the book that is factually wrong."

--R. D. Redin, Department of Physics, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, Chemical Engineering, July 22, 1963

"I had been favorably impressed with Beyond Newton. Its explanation of gravitation made more sense than anything I had ever seen on that subject. But I was horrified by the title and even more so by the contents of The Case Against The Nuclear Atom. How, I wondered, could anyone have the nerve to argue that there is no such thing as an atomic nucleus, and that the nuclear model of atoms is based on incorrect inferences from experimental data?"

--Paul deLespinasse, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Adrian College, Michigan, in “Linus Pauling's OSU Classmate: Outstanding, Unknown,” February 2001

"To all of us, steeped in the unquestioning adoration of the contemporary scientific method, this is rude and outspoken book, which sometimes hurts. The frightening thing about it is that it rings true."

--Discovery Magazine, review of The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, July 1963

"Larson does us a service in reminding us that from an operational point of view, we don't know what is in an atom, and that arguments like Asimov’s are specious and, in fact, are never applied consistently but only to serve the desired conclusion."

--Arthur W. Adamson, (distinguished research chemist, subsequently Chair of the Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, 1972-1975), Chemical and Engineering News, September 9, 1963

"Only a careful investigation of all of the author's deliberations can show whether or not he is right. The official schools of natural philosophy should not shun this (considerable, to be sure) effort. After all, we are concerned here with questions of fundamental significance. Still less will it be permissible to condemn the author as a heretic just because he opposes the 'accepted' doctrines of modern physics. Opposition is illegitimate only if essential error is proved … Whether an unbiased investigation of the author's theses would lead to confirmation or rejection is not for the reviewer to say in advance; the question is too complicated to be decided briefly."

--Professor Felix Schmeidler, Munich University Observatory, Naturwissenschaftliche Rundshau, Sept. 1966, review of New Light on Space and Time

“"At the present time, my position, that of my colleague [described as a theoretical physicist], and that of Dr. [Arthur G.B.] Metcalf [then-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Boston University] is that while we have not had the opportunity to study RS enough so that any of us can staunchly claim to be advocates, we are advocates of learning about new (to us) ideas. I myself have studied some of Dewey Larson's writings to the point that I find them most fascinating and most difficult to dismiss."

"From what I have read thus far, thorough study of his work requires at least three attributes in one very intelligent person: a willingness to expend a great deal of intellectual energy with no guarantee of success, the humility to set aside what one 'knows' long enough to follow through on new ideas, and the emotional strength and self confidence needed to resist possible admonishments of colleagues who would dismiss the new ideas based on cursory analysis."

--J. Edward Anderson, Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, letters dated October 1, 1988 and October 29, 1988, in support of a proposed physics seminar by Larson or an associate, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 8-9

"I have never before seen anybody with such an independent and absolute logic."

--Hans F. Wuenscher, former Assistant Director for Advanced Projects, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, letter to the then-current Director, November 1, 1979, reprinted in Reciprocity, Spring 1981

"His works bear out the fact that Dewey Larson is an unusually gifted individual. Never have I run across anyone whose thinking is as devastatingly logical as his is. Yet he is modest and free of the arrogance which characterizes so many of the great. He appears to understand his position as a maverick and to accept without bitterness the failure of the establishment to give his life's work a respectable hearing. If the RS is shown to be a correct representation of the physical structure of the universe, Larson will go down in history as one of the most brilliant thinkers ever to have appeared on the face of the earth. At the same time the establishment will be ridiculed for not offering Larson his day in court. All Larson has ever asked of the establishment is to be shown where his development is wrong and he has gone astray. If Larson is wrong, and nobody has yet found a fatal flaw in his work, it will not be because he is a fraud or charlatan."

--Frank A. Anderson, Associate Dean Emeritus, School of Engineering, Founding Chair, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Mississippi, letter October 12, 1988, reprinted in ISUS News, Autumn 1988, pp. 11-12

Reciprocity and ISUS News were publications of the International Society of Unified Science (formerly New Science Advocates), the organization founded to promote consideration of Larson's proposals.

As an inhabitant of this planet I am even more puzzled. 

Why is a reviewer allowed to confuse his internal dislike of a philosophy and his internal disbelieve in a proof, with facts? Even an amoebe is compelled in its day-to-day survival to differentiate between internal representation and external fact.

What unpersonal value or methodical principle is served when this scientific reviewing is allowed? 






   

Thanks for the very good reference to Larson's book. I can recommend The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (1963) to any scientist.

Steven, again I thank you for your reference but I also have a question. Why is this state of affairs accepted by the majority of scientists.

What values are supported and what principles are saved when this route is taken in science ? Should one use the word science at all. Should it not be something like science-as-a-doctrine or as science-without-100%-support-of-fact-but-we-will-need-to-sort-out-many-hidden-issues.

It must be the case because apparently scientists are affraid to discuss foundational issues and hence in a conditioned reflex black-list, exclude and reject with doctrinary reasons.

I mean, if asked politely what the difference is between a convincing and a non-convincing proof one does not get the answer.... your proof is wrong with this-and-that reason. The stated reason is that they do not have the time to answer properly. But it is forgotten that a very interesting scientific phenomenon has been invented by the FOOP reviewer. Namely the non convincing proof. What kind of mathematics would a non convincing proof differentiate from a convincing? What kind of mechanism will create conviction in a mathematical proof ? I am sure I did not make a mistake and btw the whole basis of the mathematics can be found in Phys Rev E 51, 5151-5154 (1995). So, what kind of convictions are necessary for a reviewer that dislikes a certain philosophy? Is it because a reviewer can feel safe and unseen come with some sort of an answer that he or she does not have to justify before an editor or an author. Is it because essentially and apparently review procedures are hevaily biased?