Until people are sorted into governments that test their social theories, the Enlightenment will not have penetrated the social sciences, including political science. Only when people are sorted into governments that test their social theories will we have anything like true empirical support for public policies that, currently, are imposed uniformly on vast populations.
This Enlightenment model is "authoritarian" in one sense -- in that it excludes people from environments that are testing social theories other than theirs. This is where the 10th Amendment Movement gets smeared as "authoritarian". However, if one compares that brand of authority with the brand of authority that imposes social theories from the Federal government -- particularly since the New Deal -- one can see that we're dealing with left-wing authoritarians far more than right-wing authoritarians. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing >>> website. >>> >> ***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem to be left >> wing. >> > > I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or > conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end > of the "authoritarianism" scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer: > > http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ > > In detail here: > > http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf > > A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very > conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend > to be on the authoritarian end of the scale. > > John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the > authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end, > because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no > compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no > apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his > colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf > > > >> I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no >>> point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no >>> interest in learning the truth. >>> >> ***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the dialog. But >> the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at >> FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog. >> > > That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme > ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that > you have preserved this text. > > > >> The answer is: "That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have >>> produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water >>> continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months." >>> >> ***Got links? I'll post them. >> > > This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18: > > Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments > Run at IMRA Europe.* in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, > Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New > Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute > of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf > > - Jed > >
