This is something hard to accept for convinced people, but it is a great principle. The "free speech" constitutional principle seems very important...
LENR seems victim of an indirect restriction of free speech in science, where inconvenient position lead to lost of funding, and blacklisting... hopefully not so total, letting zone beyond the border free to think differently (Italy science, japan business)... This principle of free-speech and dissenter protection, is one key finding made by Roland benabou when he analyze cause and consequence of hi Groupthink/Delusion model of rational denial. ( see http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?27-How-is-it-possible-so-many-scientist-be-wrong&p=35&viewfull=1#post35) in his paper http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf see that quote page 3: "The model’s welfare analysis makes clear what factors distinguish valuable group morale from harmful groupthink, irrespective of anticipatory payoff, which average out across states of the world. It furthermore explains why organizations and societies …and it desirable to set up ex-ante commitment mechanisms protecting and encouraging dissent (constitutional guarantees of free speech, whistle-blower protections, devil’s advocates, etc.), even when ex-post everyone would unanimously want to ignore or “kill” the messengers of bad news." 2013/1/1 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > My sense is that minority opinion is *usually* wrong, but the exceptions > can be doozies! We need minority opinion, it will keep the majority on its > toes, and ... sometimes the minority is actually right.
