This is part of a series of articles responding to the claims made in Dean Sessions’ Universal Model. Click the link to see the introduction to the series.
To hear Dean Sessions tell it, his Universal Model (UM) is such a massive “paradigm shift” that mainstream scientists generally can’t be persuaded to take it seriously.
As the director of scientific research and discovery for the UM, Dean continued investigations in the 1990s with the aid of several research assistants. Thousands of scientific journal articles were gathered from all the general fields of science, as well as in-depth experimentation was conducted both in the field and in the laboratory, howbeit, on a modest scale so that duplication would be comparatively simple. Various scientists from a number of different fields were contacted in order to ascertain whether or not particular discoveries were important or previously known. As a result of these discussions, we generally found the scientific community to be unaware and unconcerned with the evidences presented. This is because the paradigm shift suggested was too large to contemplate. The new discoveries would create an entirely new science.
As a matter of fact, I was one of the scientists he contacted, but I have a somewhat different perspective on the encounter. Here’s how I remember it.
It must have been about 15 years ago, when I was a fairly new assistant professor at BYU, when Dean Sessions and a friend of his knocked on my office door. They politely asked if they could talk to me about their scientific discoveries, so I invited them in.
At first, they talked about the history and philosophy of science. I minored in philosophy, so I’m familiar with the subject, and we had an interesting conversation about Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn maintained that scientists normally work within “paradigms,” or accepted theoretical frameworks that serve as the lenses through which they interpret empirical results. So what scientists mainly do is flesh out the details of these accepted theories. Given that theories are never perfect, some of the empirical results are bound to conflict with them. However, scientists also know that there are a lot of ways to botch or misinterpret an experiment, and sometimes theories can be fixed with only slight adjustments. So rather than immediately throwing out a theory, they will simply take note of these “anomalies” and keep working within the current paradigm. Eventually, the anomalies might pile up too much for some scientists, who might then be motivated to create a new theoretical framework. This is how scientific revolutions begin. Of course, there will always be resistance in the scientific community to new paradigms, so it is not a given that they will prevail.
Apparently, they thought I was primed to consider the paradigm shift they wanted to lay on me, so they started talking about things modern science couldn’t explain. (You know–“anomalies”.) They began with… dark matter, or some such. After a while I told them, “Look, I don’t know what to tell you, because I don’t know anything about dark matter.”
THEN, however, they started talking geology, which is my field. Consider the mineral quartz, they said. Geologists think it is formed from magma (pockets of melted rock underground), but we can’t go underground and observe this process directly. Sessions and his buddy, however, had done some experimenting in the garage. They obtained a quartz crystal and melted it under a blowtorch. When it cooled off and solidified… drumroll… it wasn’t quartz, anymore! It was GLASS!!! Therefore, quartz can’t grow from magma.
I said, “Oh, hey–I don’t know anything about dark matter, but I CAN tell you what’s going on here. You see, when a melt solidifies, it takes time to form crystals, so if it cools off and solidifies too quickly, you just form glasses, which don’t have as orderly molecular structures as crystals.”
I could have dug out some experimental petrology papers in which scientists reported creating synthetic granite (which contains quartz crystals). I could have pulled some mineralogy and crystal growth textbooks off the shelf that would have explained the whole thing. Dean Sessions wasn’t having it, though. He stalked out of my office in a huff, angry that I was such a closed-minded paradigm-hugger.
This encounter always stuck in my mind, but I never thought their project would move outside their garages. Here it is 2017, and Sessions has just published an 800-page book with a section called “Quartz Is Not Glass” (p. 101). I’ll write more later about why geologists’ answer to Sessions’ statement is still a big, “No, duh,” but for now please consider the following question.
Is Dean Sessions really a genius leading a comprehensive scientific revolution, persecuted by closed-minded scientist-sheeple? Or is he projecting his own failings on others?