The paradigms
Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.
In each era there are dominant models that relate to the social and political power structures in each region considered. These models, which were for a long time religious, often dogmatic, allowed the domination of the dominant groups at political or priestly level.
At the same time that the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured their political control and the enjoyment of economic and social privileges.
The process of replacing the European dogmatic religious systems began early in the so-called "Middle Ages", taking shelter in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers "burgos" that developed through the demographic and commercial expansion of the ecumenical regions.
The dissenters with the dogmas were declared "heretics". Some, such as Giordano Bruno and Tomás Moro were executed for their ideas or behaviors that contravened the postulates and norms established by the political and religious castes. Others, such as Nicolás Copernico or Galileo Galilei, were bitterly criticized, forced to reject, dismissed or persecuted for their ideas.
The new ideological systems put aside philosophical structures based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.
After the triumph of the European industrialist revolution, the new systems of knowledge were definitively imposed, leaving aside geocentric religious and dogmatic approaches.

The new economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge generation based on a network of academic, corporate and governmental institutions.
It is within the framework of this "network" that "official" knowledge, valid and / or "bankable" research and projects as well as articles published in so-called "referred" scientific journals have been defined [1].
According to the work of Thomas S. Kuhn "The structure of scientific revolutions" (Augmented edition of 1970), "normal" (official) scientific research is very little concerned with searching for novelties of capital importance, both in the domain of concepts as in the phenomena. The aim is to develop the conceptual frames accepted more precisely, as well as to obtain data that "confirm" the already known.
James Lovelock points out in his work "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that academic scientists may think they have freedom but in reality most of them "have changed their freedom of thought due to good working conditions, a regular income, a position and A Hostel. They are also limited by an army of bureaucratic forces, from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by the tribal rules of the discipline to which they belong. A physicist would have difficulty doing chemistry, and a biologist would find it almost impossible to do physics. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called peer review [2]. "
The current scientific model or system is called normal science or "paradigm" by Thomas S. Kuhn. The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's vision is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a given society at a specific moment in its history. At present it refers to the scientific "model" adopted in a generalized way in the contemporary globalized society.
In this "globalized" society the official scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allow (supposedly) to "advance" in knowledge, in particular to achieve greater detail in the concrete application of accepted scientific models.
There is no method in this official paradigm (or in any other dominant paradigm, by the way) that allows discarding "the whole model" and beginning to accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that end up radically modifying the recognized model.
To a large extent, the difficulty in changing the official paradigm is that the radical modification of the paradigm implies altering power relations.
At the political level, the holders of paradigmatic power are those who occupy the decision-making positions. At an economic level, it is they who benefit from their privileged position in the knowledge structure. At an academic level, they defend the prestige and economic security of the university and professional positions they hold.
In summary, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm by its main defenders is posed in terms of power.
The contemporary paradigm, understood as such,  has a number of accepted (official) beliefs in which the whole structure is based.
(to be continued)

Contemporary scientific dogmas and the excomunion of heretics

In every historical moment there are conceptual and/or scientific models that are to a large extent the ideological sustenance of the prevailing power systems. States and their political, academic and religious structures are based, to a large extent, on such models.

These models change as time goes by. New data are obtained, other conceptual approaches are developed, and finally, the model change occurs, what Kuhn called "the paradigmatic change". Generally, the authorities and political, religious and academic powers resist this change, but in the end, the accumulation of information and the diffusion of new ideas impose the substitution of old visions for new ones more adapted to the state of society in that moment.

Although this process has been systematic throughout history, the elites of each period act as if their conceptions were immutable, sometimes true dogmas.

This also happens in the contemporary age.

Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.

In each era there are dominant models that relate to the social and political power structures in each region considered. These models, which were for a long time religious, often dogmatic, allowed the domination of controlling groups at political or priestly level.

At the same time that the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured their political control and the enjoyment of economic and social privileges.

Modern history of dogmatism

The process of replacing European dogmatic religious systems began early in the so-called "Middle Ages", taking shelter in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers ("bourgs") that developed  through the demographic and commercial expansion of commerce.

Dissenters with dogmas were declared "heretics." Some, like Giordano Bruno and Tomás Moro, were executed for their ideas or behaviors that contravened the postulates and norms established by the political and religious castes. Others, such as Nicolás Copernico or Galileo Galilei, were bitterly criticized, forced to reject, dismissed or persecuted for their ideas.

The new ideological systems put aside philosophical structures based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.

After the triumph of the European industrialist revolution, the new systems of knowledge were definitively imposed, leaving aside geocentric religious and dogmatic approaches.

The new economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge generation based on a network of academic, corporate and governmental institutions.

It is within the framework of this "network" that "official" knowledge, valid and / or "fundable" research and projects have been defined, as well as articles published in so-called "referees journals" scientific journals.

According to the work of Thomas S. Kuhn "The structure of scientific revolutions" (Augmented edition of 1970), "normal" (official) scientific research is very little concerned with searching for novelties of capital importance, both in the domain of concepts as in the phenomena. The aim is to develop the conceptual frames accepted more precisely, as well as to obtain data that "confirm" what is already known.

James Lovelock points out in his work "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that academic scientists may think they have freedom but in reality most of them "have changed their freedom of thought due to good working conditions, a regular income, a position and A Hostel. They are also limited by an army of bureaucratic forces, from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by the tribal rules of the discipline to which they belong. A physicist would have difficulty doing chemistry, and a biologist would find it almost impossible to do physics. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called peer review. "

The current scientific model or system is called normal science or "paradigm". The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's vision is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a given society at a specific moment in its history. At present it refers to the scientific "model" adopted in a generalized way in the contemporary globalized society.

In this "globalized" society the official scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allow (supposedly) to "advance" in knowledge, in particular to achieve greater detail in the concrete application of models.

Scientific paradigms are difficult to change

D.Antón

The paradigm of normal science defined by Thomas S. Kuhn is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it regards to the scientific “model” widely adopted in contemporary global society_.
The theme of hydrocarbons, as well as the geophysical and geological framework that would lead to their formation and evolution, is an established paradigm that resists being changed despite the numerous data which should induce a radical and thorough review.
In this “globalized” society it is assumed that the official scientific model developed through the accumulation of scientific data would allow “progress” in knowledge, in particular achieving greater detail in the specific application of accepted scientific models.
Unfortunately, there is no official method in this paradigm (or any other dominant paradigm) that would accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that may end modifying it radically.
For that reason, in the field of petroleum geology, it is so difficult to put into question the validity of many concepts whose accuracy are being contradicted every day by reality.
The difficulty of changing the official paradigm is that this modification, nor only modifying concepts, but mainly because it also alters power relations.
Politically, those who hold “the paradigmatic power”, are the same mechanisms that control decision-making.
From the economic point of view they are the ones who benefit from the decisions made based on the officially accepted postulates
In the academic sphere there are those who defend their prestige and economic security that give professional or academic positions they occupy and eventually would be threatened by a possible change of paradigm (Lovelock, 1988).
When we analyze the accepted theory about the origin of oil and natural gas, and its main defenders in the academic and industrial world, we find a similar a similar situation as was generally defined by Kuhn and Lovelock.
The biotic theory of petroleum formation involves the inevitability of future shortages, which produces price increases.
Companies and oil states are particularly interested in defending this point of view to sustain their huge income.
The interest of researchers and academics to maintain the paradigm of fossil fuels minerals is based on the privileges granted by the institutional structures and the economic and organizational power of the establishment.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm of fossil fuels, is not just a theoretical discussion. Like so many other issues, it also arises in terms of economic, political and social power.
The ideas of Thomas Gold and other astronomers, astrophysicists and geologists who proposed the theory of planetary degassing have been ignored, and even desautorized, but not disproved with relevant scientific information.
We have no doubt that sooner or later the paradigm shift will occur. When the critical mass of researchers and scientists and support of the public is sufficient, when the decades passed and new data become available confirming the new vision of the history and dynamics of our planet, power structures will be disarticulated and a new paradigm based on the actual data will be officially accepted.
At that time the conditions will be created to redefine the political and economic strategies to develop and establish a new approach to human relationships with the resources and environments on the planet.
From: "Unexhaustible? Natural gas and petroleum". Danilo Antón, Piriguazu Ediciiones 

Natural gas and petroleum ARE NOT of fossil origin
The established and dogmatic paradigm of "fossil fuels" must be changed

Danilo Anton 
The paradigm of normal science defined by Thomas S. Kuhn is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it regards to the scientific “model” widely adopted in contemporary global society.
The theme of hydrocarbons, as well as the geophysical and geological framework that would lead to their formation and evolution, is an estalbished paradigm that resists being changed despite the numerous data which should induce a radical and thorough review.
In this “globalized” society it is assumed that the official scientific model developed through the accumulation of scientific data would allow “progress” in knowledge, in particular achieving greater detail in the specific application of accepted scientific models.
Unfortunately, there is no official method in this paradigm (or any other dominant paradigm) that would accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that may end modifying it radically.
For that reason, in the field of petroleum geology, it is so difficult to put into question the validity of many concepts whose accuracy are being contradicted every day by reality.
The difficulty of changing the official paradigm is that this modification, nor only modifying concepts, but mainly because it also alters power relations.
Politically, those who hold “the paradigmatic power”, are the same mechanisms that control decision-making.
From the economic point of view they are the ones who benefit from the decisions made based on the officially accepted postulates
In the academic sphere there are those who defend their prestige and economic security that give professional or academic positions they occupy and eventually would be threatened by a possible change of paradigm (Lovelock, 1988).
When we analyze the accepted theory about the origin of oil and natural gas, and its main defenders in the academic and industrial world, we find a similar a similar situation as was generally defined by Kuhn and Lovelock.
The biotic theory of petroleum formation involves the inevitability of future shortages, which produces price increases.
Companies and oil states are particularly interested in defending this point of view to sustain their huge income.
The interest of researchers and academics to maintain the paradigm of fossil fuels minerals is based on the privileges granted by the institutional structures and the economic and organizational power of the establishment.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm of fossil fuels, is not just a theoretical discussion. Like so many other issues, it also arises in terms of economic, political and social power.
The ideas of Thomas Gold and other astronomers, astrophysicists and geologists who proposed the theory of planetary degassing have been ignored, and even desautorized, but not disproved with relevant scientific information.
We have no doubt that sooner or later the paradigm shift will occur. When the critical mass of researchers and scientists and support of the public is sufficient, when the decades passed and new data become available confirming the new vision of the history and dynamics of our planet, power structures will be disarticulated and a new paradigm based on the actual data will be officially accepted.

From "Unexhaustible, Natural Gas and Petroleum", D.Anton, Piriguazú Ediciones

Contemporary scientific dogmas 
and the "excommunication" of heretics

Danilo Antón
At each historical moment there are conceptual and / or scientific models that are to a large extent the ideological support of prevailing power systems. States and their political, academic, and religious structures rely on such models.
These models change over time. New data are obtained, other conceptual approaches are developed, and finally, the model change occurs. Kuhn called it "paradigmatic change".
Generally, political, religious and academic authorities and powers resist this change, but in the end, the accumulation of information and the diffusion of new ideas impose the substitution of old visions for new ones more adapted to the state of society in that moment.
Although this process has been systematic throughout history, the elites of each period act as if their conceptions were immutable, sometimes true dogmas.
This also occurs in contemporary times.
Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.
In each epoch there are dominant models that relate to the social and political power structures in place. These models, which were for a long time of a religious character, often dogmatic, allowed the domination of the some groups at the political or sacerdotal level.
At the same time that the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured their political control and the enjoyment of economic and social privileges.

Modern History of Dogmatism
The process of replacing European dogmatic religious systems began early in the so-called "Middle Ages" sheltered in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers "burgos" and growing
through the demographic and commercial expansion of the ecumenical regions.
People who disagreed with dogmas were declared "heretics." Some, such as Giordano Bruno and Tomás Moro, were executed for their ideas or behavior that contradicted the postulates and norms established by the political and religious castes. Others, such as Nicolas Copernico or Galileo Galilei, were bitterly criticized, persecuted for their ideas and finally forced to renounce to express their points of view.
The new ideological systems developed since the XVII century commenced to neglect the philosophical structures based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.
From the triumph of the European industrialist revolution the new systems of knowledge were definitively imposed, leaving aside the geocentric religious and dogmatic approaches.
New economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge generation based on a network of academic, corporate and governmental institutions.
It is within the framework of this "network" that "official" knowledge, valid and / or "fundable" research projects were defined, as well as the selection of "publishable" articles in so-called "refereed scientific journals".
According to Thomas S. Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1970 edition), "normal" (official) scientific research is concerned on looking for novelties within accepted conceptual frames, as well as to obtain data that "confirm" what is already known.
James Lovelock points out in his work "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that academic scientists may think that they have freedom but in reality most of them "have changed freedom of thought for good working conditions, regular income and social prestige..
Scientists are also constrained by an army of bureaucratic forces, from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by the tribal rules of the discipline to which they belong. A physicist would have difficulty doing chemistry research, and a biologist would find almost impossible to do physics. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called peer review. "
The current model or scientific system is called normal science or "paradigm". The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's view is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a given society at a particular moment in its history. At present it refers to the scientific "model" adopted in a generalized way in contemporary globalized society.
In this "globalized" society the official scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allow (supposedly) to "advance" in the knowledge in particular to achieve greater detail in the concrete application of accepted scientific models.
There is no method in this official paradigm (nor in any other dominant paradigm, by the way) that allows to discard "the whole model" and begin to accept other theories and apply other rules or procedures that end up radically altering the recognized model.
To a great extent, the difficulty of changing the official paradigm is that the radical modification of the paradigm implies altering the relations of power.
At the political level, the holders of paradigmatic power are those who occupy the decision-making positions. At an economic level, it is they who benefit from their privileged position in the knowledge structure. At the academic level, they defend the prestige and economic security that the university and professional positions they occupy.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm by its main proponents arises in terms of power.
D.Antón.
More info at daniloanton.blogspot.com

Humans are special, not better

Danilo Anton

Max Planck, the famous German scientist and Nobel laureate, once said:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph convincing its opponents, but rather due to the natural death of the older generation, it is replaced by a new one that has become familiar with the new theory or belief.”.

The technological-industrial paradigm of today’s world is no exception. After three centuries it is destined to succumb under the weight of its own contradictions.

Its domain has caused unprecedented destruction of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and has developed several generations of disoriented women and men lacking roots or references.

The human species is not larger, or more capable, even more complex than the others that make up the planet. Nor it is very different.  Humans shares with other animals and plants much of their genetic code, and have evolved to what they are presently through a pattern similar to many other animals.

The starting point for an analysis of our species should be understanding that we are not “superior” to any other.

We are not the top of natural evolution, far from it.

We can certainly say that, in a sense, we are “special”, but so are dolphins, palm trees or flatworms.

Each of these organisms live their lives, develops their own metabolism with the resources at their disposal, and do their best to survive through their descendants.

The “special”, and not better, human traits, are the result of an old history.

About 5 or 6 million years ago, some ancient primates, probably pf arboreal origin, evolved, became bipedal, lost their body fur, developed a large brain and created sophisticated cultures based on the generation and interpretation of symbols. 

To produce these super-brained culture, they managed to prolong the infant stage of their offspring. Human babies take a long time to grow. For several years, they remain very vulnerable, totally unable to defend themselves. This children’s stage is the longest among all known mammals.

The end result this long period of human growth during childhood is an adult who is not really very different from adults of other species. Females and males carry out the normal physiological functions of the species, feed and metabolize plant and animal tissues, breathe oxygen from the air, put great efforts to protect their children, and finally they die and degrade like other plants and animals.

Reproduced from "Peoples, Drugs and Serpents", Danilo Anton, 2016, Piriguazú Ediciones.