Making a big impression wherever I go has become standard fare for me now.  Resistance or passive resistance from some social science types has also become standard for me.  The social science view of the scientific method is quite different than the hard science view.  Fortunately the overall tide of acceptance has steadily gained strength, especially this year.  Thomas Kuhn, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions would expect as much.

Liberal Arts Prejudice Against Professional Schools

            The ivory tower concept can apply to all academic schools to some extent.  But it is especially true for the low pay academics in the social sciences, who deeply resent the higher pay earned in professional schools like business, engineering, law and medicine.  When they have control of campus wide awards systems, they may systematically exclude academics from the professional schools from those awards.  As an undergraduate, I experienced this exclusion from the Phi Beta Kappa honors fraternity and as an engineer had to settle for the Phi Kappa Phi all university "equivalent" with a "separate but equal" feel to it, not unlike racial discrimination may have felt a century ago.  While blacks have made great strides, women still face glass ceilings in many academic settings.  A woman who got more votes than Obama in the 2008 primaries and more votes than Trump in the 2016 general election is still not president, because of the caucus system in the first case and the electoral college in the second case.  Recent attempts to eliminate memory of the first black presidency and his legacy show how far we still have to go in racial matters.

Peace and Justice

            So after years of making presentations at the Peace and Justice Studies Association I am suddenly excluded in 2016 after supporting an "unpopular" woman presidential candidate on the list-serve and being attacked on the discussion list once for using the word "stupid" defending myself against a slur by "one of their own" against me, and another time by someone posting "refutations" to a small part of my statement in mild support of the Democrat running against their favored Socialist candidate.  A black women who stood up for Hillary was later hounded out of the group.  This unethical retaliation through peer review is only possible because of the distinctive nature of my work, which makes blind evaluation not possible.  That some clique calls my work unpopular and tries to limit my expression is clearly refuted by the website reaction to my 36 releases a year.  Enthusiasm for my work is growing internationally and lately among Gary Gygax fantasy gamers, recently pushing me into the top 1% on academia.edu.

            My point was that the Socialist refused to call for cutting defense to fund any of his dozen proposals, each specifically paid for with specific taxes on separate links of the official website and never with defense cuts.  The Socialist candidate was anti-war on his official website but never called for defense cuts specifically.  This is a common ruse among mainstream national candidates who do not want to lose any swing states with high military spending.   Sanders himself has said on television that he did not come up with the "Feel the Bern" slogan, although he wishes he had.  In that second case, large font quotes were taken from the Sanders independent website FeeltheBern mostly against war and some against military spending, twisting my words and falsely calling me inaccurate, refusing to admit this is tantamount to calling me a liar.  Gee, thanks.  Shouting against me and then saying you did not call me a liar.  Such courage.  Later this same board member openly put down my Nobel Peace Prize nomination rather than celebrating it like a decent human being would. 

Methodology

            Then a second person of the threesome putting down my Nobel nomination on the list-serve accuses me of not being methodological when I describe the process of creating my pinpoint accurate sixty year model of US manufacturing productivity.  That second person disagrees with my use of continental measuring of economic activity.  This assumes the social science process of creating questions first before surveying for their answer.  That is not the physical science method of observing first before you build your hypothesis.  Precision is not expected in the social sciences because it is generally only found in the physical sciences.  That difference changes everything, including what is considered the scientific method.  Professional schools rely on more traditional scientific methods but that does not make them non-methodological. This is another example of social science bias against professional schools.  It may be that crowds and human nature are viewed as unstable in the social sciences, but in the physical sciences more leads to more stability, just as in economics, moving from the individual to the family to business to the city to the state to the nation to the continent tends to reduce inaccuracies and add clarification of results, thanks to the law of large numbers.

Science and Society

            In another instance, an academic organization dedicated to science and technology studies was busily talking about the differences between cultural and socialism versions of feminism when the topic turned to Russia suddenly and I pointed out some Russian history and the group suddenly disbanded and branded me as a Trump supporter which I am not.  At the next regular meeting of the group my hand was raised and for the first time not acknowledged before the group discussion ended after a presentation.  Once again Letters and Science discriminate against an interdisciplinary individual with practical professional real world experience.  Pure high minded academics don't want to get too close to the dirty business of politics; they just want to talk about it.

Conference in Toronto

            In a history of economics conference in Toronto one month ago, I raised a question in the general session that challenged the speaker's thoughts on religion and was thereafter banned from further questions.  Most conferences and presentations welcome my questions, but some control freak moderators occasionally try to stifle me.  My own presentation was greeted with a lack of questions from a large group of 27 people.  This was the second time I'd tried to present the whole of my accurate economics theory with a similar result.  When I feature one aspect of my theory at a time, I get great receptiveness, but when I bite off more than they can chew, I get stony looks and cool receptiveness.  It was ironic in that one of the keynote speakers went on and on about how economics is not a science, a widespread belief among economic historians, that was well received.  But when I present my tightly accurate results of the science I've created about economics, it is a bridge to far for them, that's not possible they are thinking.  When I break the ideas down to digestible chunks, they usually greet the material warmly.  Once again, Thomas Kuhn would not be surprised by any of this.  Toronto has a wonderful Quaker meeting house group, a Whole Foods that acts like a cafeteria at lunchtime, and a vibrant high tech industry with the Toronto newspaper leading the way.  Baked Lays potato chips are far more delicious in Toronto than the flat shaped and flavorless variety sold in the United States.

Fields of Knowledge Addenda

            Main Ideas July 2017, the link to further reading on academia.edu for this press release, consists of seven pages: 

The first three pages are 8 PowerPoint frames each on three main topics: 

First is "Social Decay of Empire" and Stages of Empire,

Second is "Weather Wealth and Wars" or Global Warming Cycle

Third is "Dungeons and Dragons" Origins of Gary Gygax's Work

Fourth is "Summary" Military DisEconomics thirteen key correlations

Fifth is "Reductio Ad Absurdum" about the New Macroeconomic Model

Sixth is the "Nine Areas of Mastery" needed to build the Reuschlein Model

Seventh is "10 Scientific Revolution Facts" by Thomas Kuhn 

An eleventh point by Kuhn is that an outsider or newcomer like Reuschlein is usually the person who comes up with the new paradigm.  Here is the detailed link:        

https://www.academia.edu/33884446/Main_Ideas_Summary_July_2017_7pages