Hubert Reeves ****
Hubert Reeves
The magazine Ciel et Espace presents each month an advertisement for lectures given by Hubert Reeves at the grand amphitheatre of the Sorbonne.
Twenty years ago, when Reeves was still an employee at the CNRS, his fee for an hour of lecture was 40,000 F.
I think that the "45 F for the unemployed" is excessive.
Below is a copy of an e-mail that a young Canadian researcher sent me in September 2002:
Hello Mr. Petit,
I want to tell you how much your presence reassures me on this planet. You do an excellent job of popularizing and searching for truth. Since I found your website, I have been enjoying the fascinating new articles that appear almost every day. I particularly enjoyed the portraits you make of the "superstring men" and other sheep-like and incredibly narrow-minded scientists in the community. I laughed because, in my environment, too many people are in awe of scientists such as Hubert Reeves and Stephen Hawking, and for the first time, finally, someone shares my opinion on the lack of spirit of some scientists in the community. Personally, it reassures me to know that two people can independently reach the same conclusions. I think it's better to laugh, because these scientists can be really funny, so stupid are they. One always gets out of difficult situations more easily with a sense of humor. The first time I had irrefutable proof of their stupidity was during my studies at the University of Laval (in Quebec). Hubert Reeves was giving a lecture with other invited researchers at the end of the 1990s. At the end of the lecture, it was time for questions and a very bold student had the courage to ask Mr. Reeves what he thought of the ideas of J.P. Petit. Mr. Reeves answered something really surprising for the naive student that I was: "Yes, if you want my opinion, you shouldn't waste your time on that," with an extraordinarily arrogant look as if he had just answered the impertinent question of an ignorant person. At that time, I had read your book on the Ummites and knew your work on your theory of twin universes, which I had studied seriously. I therefore knew what he was talking about. But I couldn't intervene, so stunned was I by his answer.
These scientists are sheep. Always ready to blindly follow the "consensus" as if the consensus sufficed by itself.
In short, I thank you for having the courage to denounce the stupidity of these grotesque characters. We need people like you.
In principle, one does not attack "idols." The general public would not understand. When one criticizes people by citing their names, one can be accused of "wanting to settle accounts." In the case of Reeves, it is not the person that is questionable. He is only an emanation of a system that keeps the public in ignorance, which is there to hide that contemporary science is experiencing a very serious crisis, in practically all fields. There are things that need to be clarified. Reeves, for example, is not the "great scientist" that the media would like to see in him ("you are a great astrophysicist," the journalist who hosted the last episode of "La Nuit des Etoiles" told him, a puff of incense that he received without a muscle in his face twitching). He is the author of rather average past contributions, nothing more. It is not "a great figure of science," even though he has deliberately adopted an Einstein look. He is a "science representative," to be honest, coupled with a quality popularizer. For thirty years, he has been doing the "popote tour," having others explain to him what could be presented to the public. The quality of his speech decreases at the same time as the scientific activity in his specialty loses its quality. There was a time when he was a hit, speaking with a Canadian accent that he has kept for thirty years "from the time when the universe was a very hot little ball." Now, see the paper by Bonnet-Bidaud in Ciel et Espace of October 2002, as well as the editorial by Alain Cirou: the "standard" description of the cosmic history is leaking from all sides. Let's be clear. Reeves' role is to reassure the population, the general public, to make them believe that "we are progressing." Why? Because it is the image of an entire scientific community that is at stake. The public must have the impression that science is progressing for the funds to arrive. Astronomers and astrophysicists are, in fact, the most fervent supporters of their national Pangloss:
- He has popularized astronomy and astrophysics. Thanks to him, we have funds.....
It is probably true. Perhaps the public and even the politicians would be less inclined to grant their largesse to a discipline in crisis. When I speak of crisis, I must be precise:
-
On the observational level, it is a constant advance, "the Wild West of observation." Let's add, just in France, that we have always had outstanding astronomers and instrumentalists. French astronomy, with the Franco-Canadian site in Hawaii and the site in Chile, is among the best in the world.
-
Around the world, among the theorists, it is the most complete confusion. No one understands anything about the cosmos, neither on the scale of a galaxy (missing mass, flat rotation curves) nor on a larger scale (lack of primordial antimatter, problem of the homogeneity of the early universe, etc.). This confusion only increases over the years. For example, read the critique of the article published by Bonnet-Bidaud in Ciel et espace of October 2002, already linked. Listen to our recent member of the Academy of Sciences, Thibaud-Damour, who "controls" the Institute of Higher Studies in Bures-sur-Yvette from where he shoots at everything that moves, talking about his current work on "the time before the Big Bang." The king is naked and very few dare to say it. Theories without observations are only intellectual swindles.
The fraud is that people like Reeves not only hide this state of crisis but also remain silent about new theories (like mine) that could allow us to get out of this impasse, theories that could be the subject of debates in scientific arenas. At the media level, you will never see Jean-Pierre Petit and Hubert Reeves face to face on a television show about the topic "Where are astrophysics and cosmology today?" otherwise this debate would quickly turn into a total disaster for the latter, confronted with an avalanche of evidence. Read the first part, titled "The State of the Situation," of my book "We Have Lost Half of the Universe" (almost total press silence since its release in 1997).
The show "La Nuit des Etoiles" is a sort of annual mass, mediocre. Indeed, the competition between an aging Hubert Reeves, who occasionally says a foolish thing (about lunar gravity, delicately repeated by a French astronaut present) and an André Brahic, who looks like a seminarian full of amphetamines, already sees himself as "the heir." It is not about informing or explaining, but about grabbing as much speaking time as possible. Brahic amuses me, who holds the microphone at the level of his lips for hours, not to lose a fraction of a second as soon as a slot appears. However, there are people who have things to say and who express themselves well in front of cameras. I am not talking about myself. The previous year, I saw Reeves cut off young people who, obviously, were "too good on the air and said relevant things." I found the "patriarch's" attitude unappealing. There comes a time when, having been honored, one should perhaps consider leaving room for younger people instead of clinging to the microphone like a desperate man. I suddenly remember an anecdote. A little over fifteen years ago, I was walking on the Seine street in Paris. Suddenly I realized that I was at the level of the "Cabinet des Médailles." There is a porch where the latest medals are displayed. I entered and what was my surprise to find one struck in the image of the "great man." Unless the role of the long-standing cabinet of medals is now to strike medals in the image of Johnny Hallyday or Zinedine Zidane? I don't know. Times are changing.
There is also the fact that the times are dangerous. The role of people who have "their careers behind them" should not be to worry about urgent issues, such as the use of advanced science in weapons, genetic manipulations, etc., serious health and pollution problems. The range of problems is vast. People "media-covered" should use their "image capital" and credibility to join a fight that must be urgently conducted, so that things we are being hidden are revealed. Is it still the time to distribute "star dust" like a sand merchant and repeat that "everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds"? Instead of worrying about the future of humanity, Reeves seems to be dozing in an image that is petrifying, waiting for the time when the organizers of shows will say:
*- Reeves? Well, we've seen him a lot, haven't we? *
In the media, the Tarpeian Rock is near the Capitol. To stay at all costs on the stage, is it essential to continue howling with the pack, to be a defender of ignorance, to continue hiding what many are beginning to know. Perhaps, in the measure that our media are under the control of an omnipresent hidden power. And there is a high chance that they are. There is "political correctness" but also "scientific correctness," "astrophysical correctness," "biological correctness," etc... I don't really believe in our journalists. When approached, they confess "that they are not free." Those who occupy lower positions admit that they cannot ignore instructions from their editorial offices. When you go up to the editorial directors, they flee like eels. So, who is pulling the strings? Who decides what is good or not to say?
Internet is finally our last space of absolute freedom, for now. The websites are legally treated as press organs, and you should know that what is said there can be subject to defamation lawsuits. I mention in passing that, since the initial date is that of the file download, the statute of limitations is that of printed and spoken press: three months. Which press organ would open its columns to me to openly criticize "the idol"? I remember an episode dating back 15 or 20 years, hosted by Michel Polac, who had a sort of literary review on his show. One day he had philosophers, authors of different works, and... Hubert Reeves. Suddenly, one of the philosophy professors, author of a book, exploded:
*- When I read your books, Mr. Reeves, I find mostly philosophical platitudes. As for the themes you touch upon, they have already been treated with a clearly superior talent to yours by people like Kant, Spinoza, Hegel and so many others that you omit to cite. Personally, I think that in fifty years, many people will remember Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, but everyone will have forgotten Hubert Reeves. *
There is no theory of Hubert Reeves, no model of Hubert Reeves. There is even no idea of Hubert Reeves. He only sells the works and ideas of others. The key phrase is always:
- Currently we think that....
The "we" allows one to wear all the crowns. The idea, the discovery is then attributed to the speaker, the actor who recites a text that is not his.
I am sorry to attack the idol. There are politicians who have the art of stringing sentences, giving the impression that they have said something, when in fact they have not. Do you believe that in science it is different? The politician uses his image, his gestures, his gaze.
*- I will not deviate... I will be intransigent... the guilty will be prosecuted... my government is currently concerned with... a train of measures is under study... I can assure you that... etc... etc... *
There is an equivalent in scientific speeches. It is more difficult to decode. But if one day soon you listen to Hubert Reeves speaking on television, record it, listen to it again. You will see, it is empty, it is astro-babble.
He has had nothing to say for a long time.
Number of visits to this page since October 12, 2002: