I really liked that paper, John. It certainly has validity to most things in our society. I believe that we will see a paradigm shift in economy and in management / leadership. Today information is so fast and so accurate that 'blowing smoke in people's eyes' does not work any longer. It did work for old kings and communistic leaders with monopoly on the information. We all are sinners in regards to our integrity and I welcome the day when we all can see the benefit of true integrity. If anyone has a doubt just take examples of how we excuse our lack of integrity. “Everyone else is doing it.” “We’ve always done it.” “This is the way this business works.” “If we don’t do it, somebody else will.” “Nobody’s hurt by it.” “It doesn’t matter how it gets done, as long as it gets done.” “It works, so let’s not ask too many questions.” “No one’s going to notice and besides we will fix it before they do.” “It’s legal, but . . .” “It’s too expensive.” “It has to be done to save the organization, and by the way a lot of jobs.”
I will plug for my believe that it requires organizations to be smaller and autonomous. GE and GM and big governmental organizations just provide the backdrop for all those excuses. They do not fly in small organizations. Most of those statements would not be accepted in your family but are common at work. Another take from this paper is that patents are out dated as an institution. First of all the patent office has little integrity. (No LENR can be patented as it conflicts with the establishment.) Second the patent will be used to steal the invention and define how to circumvent it. Once again it had its place when information was slow - not today. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:43 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course there really isn't a neatly described scientific method. > > But I just read a quote that underlies what must be recognized by anyone > interested in a scientific revolution... > > *Kuhn makes clear in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the > requirement for change in a scientific paradigm does not arise from even * > *the best current practices of a given science.* > > This is from this paper I am reading about the important (and correct > definition of) Integrity in economics: > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985594 > > This reminds me of Rossi's device and the anomalous EM, the anomalous > variability of nuclear products. > > Clearly the best practice in conventional nuclear science does not apply > to this new area. > > The same applies to my aetheric research. > > John >
