Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought | | title = Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought | ||
| author = [[James DeMeo]], [[Neil E | | author = [[James DeMeo]], [[Neil E Munch]], [[John E Chappell]] | ||
| keywords = [[Suppression]] | | keywords = [[Suppression]] | ||
| published = 1998 | | published = 1998 | ||
Revision as of 21:22, 29 December 2016
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought |
| Author(s) | James DeMeo, Neil E Munch, John E Chappell |
| Keywords | Suppression |
| Published | 1998 |
| Journal | None |
Abstract
Examples of censorship and suppression are widespread in academia. Great progress has come from tolerance in earth sciences; but harsh intolerance rules in social sciences, vs. natural-environmental influences, and in physics, vs. rationality and objectivity: both involve disdain for common sense. Links between skeptics' groups and establishment science. The situations in Russia and Germany. Discussion on how to cope with the intolerance.