hey jed. i saw this and i thought of me.. and then i thought of you. http://xkcd.com/386/ [image: Duty Calls]
On 20/02/2008, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See: > > http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ > > <http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/%7Ealtemey/>This is the web site of Bob > Altemayer of U. Manitoba, a social scientist. > > This web site and book was recommended by Pres. Nixon's White House > Council John Dean, during a lecture on UCTV. I highly recommend it. It > describes the mindset (or psychology) of the authoritarian person, who can > be either a leader or follower. > > This book may seem biased against right-wing extremist authoritarians, but > I do not think it is. It describes mainly right-winger authoritarians > because that is the type we are familiar with in the U.S. and Canada. But > authoritarians can also be extreme left-wing people such as Fidel Castro, or > Stalin. We don't happen have many like that in the U.S. or Canada, so most > of the examples in the book are right-wingers. > > (I digress, but in a sense the Stalinists were conservatives. My father, > who was posted to Russia during WWII, said that the Stalinist officials he > met with the most reactionary, conservative people he ever encountered. The > thing is, they were trying to conserve Marxist Leninism, whereas our > conservatives are trying to preserve pure laissez-faire capitalism.) > > Anyway, let me explain what this has to do with cold fusion. The other day > I was speculating about why mainstream science has become so conservative > over the past half-century. I think it is mainly the structural reasons > described by Hagelstein and others, such as excessive centralized funding > and the overdependence on peer review. But another reason is that large > branches of science have been captured by empire building people who tend to > be authoritarian. As this book shows, authoritarianism is usually the enemy > of the open-minded, objective scientific attitude. It includes many good > examples. > > Authoritarians also tend toward "pseudoskepticism" (Marcello Truzzi's > term, I think) or pathological skepticism. In his book, Storms accuses > opponents of cold fusion of being pathological skeptics (p. 49). We have > often discussed these people. I consider the people at CSICOP to be > pseudoskeptics, and the Society for Scientific Exploration to be the > antidote, and true skeptics. > > Let me work through one example of this > > Authoritarians abound at Wikipedia, and they are the ones who torpedoed > the cold fusion article. One of their characteristics, described in this > book is "conventionalism" ("believing that *everybody *should have to > follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed) and the > notion that they speak for the majority -- even when they do not, or when > the definition of "majority" is so vague it becomes meaningless, which is > the case in cold fusion. As I have often pointed out in arguments with > skeptics, you can define "majority" different ways: > > 1. The majority in the entire human population -- the set of 6 billion > people. Most people in this group have never heard of cold fusion. > > 2. The majority of professional engineers and scientists. Probably, most > people in this group have read a little about cold fusion in the popular > press and they assume it does not exist. > > 3. The majority of professional electrochemists, materials scientists and > others who have some relevant knowledge. It is very difficult to say what > this group thinks of cold fusion. Just about every electrochemist knows > Fleischmann and Bockris, and I doubt they would categorically assert these > two must be wrong. > > 4. The majority of people who have some relevant knowledge and who have > read five or more papers about cold fusion. I would bet that 90% of these > people are convinced that cold fusion is real. I know only one person in > this category who denies that cold fusion is real: Dieter Britz, and I think > his reasoning is far, far off the rails. > > 5. The majority of mainstream, established, professional scientists who > have performed experiments in cold fusion and published papers. In most > scientific disciplines, this is the only group that has any say in the > matter. Nearly everyone in this group is certain that cold fusion is real. > There are roughly ~2,000 people in this category (out of the 4,706 authors > listed in the LENR-CANR.org database). In normal circumstances, no one in > his right mind would question the judgement of such a large group of > professionals. > > What is interesting is that normally an authoritarian would be the first > to define the relevant group as number five, and to accept their conclusion > simply because they are mainstream professionals. In other words, > authoritarians tend to make an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. But, in > this case, they reject group #5 in favor of the opinions of people who have > no knowledge whatever, such as the editors of the Scientific American. > > As I have noted here before, an Appeal to Authority does NOT mean citing a > relevant, competent authority. That is not a fallacy, although many people > believe it is. See: > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > Citing McKubre *is not* an fallacy, because Mike is a bona fide authority. > Citing the editor of Sci. Am. *is* a fallacy, because the man told me he > has not read anything about cold fusion, and all of his assertions about the > subject are demonstrably ignorant and wrong. This is one of the errors that > pseudo-skeptics at Wikipedia have made repeatedly. They themselves > constantly make Appeal to Authority fallacies, but when I cite a real > authority, they turn around and accuse me of making an Appeal to Authority > fallacy. They are not strong on logic -- to say the least. Also, none of > them has ever acknowledged this mistake, or any mistake for that matter, > which is also characteristic of the authoritarian personality. > > - Jed > -- ∞ and now for a commercial break: http://www.discogs.com/sell/list?seller=esaruoho thank you
