The problem is that neither Patrick, nor the hundreds of other self-styled deprogrammers who followed in his footsteps, had any kind of professional counseling experience; and so his method was completely unscientific. As professional psychologists had already discovered, brainwashing was largely fictional. The attempts were real, but the results were not. Therefore, deprogramming was equally ineffective.
In fact it is difficult to imagine anyone more divorced from the spirit of the Jazz Age than the priggish, puritanical, non-smoking, non-drinking young Popper. Apparently his idea of a good time outside working hours was a session as a voluntary helper in Alfred Adler’s social work clinic in the slums of Vienna. Following Tolstoy’s ideas on the dignity of manual labour Popper tried various jobs and he completed an apprenticeship to become a qualified cabinet maker. Apart from a teenage flirtation with the communist movement Popper’s nearest approach to radicalism was Arnold Schoenberg’s Society for Private Musical Performances which he attended out of a sense of duty to explore contemporary music. However, when he started serious writing for publication there was no time for that kind of distraction and often on weekends Popper would sit with his wife in a coffee shop writing drafts which she typed up on a portable typewriter.
Although the title of his show suggests that a skeptical perspective will be explored, that's rarely the case. I went on his show as a guest once, assuming that it was a skeptical program, and found him to be actively hostile to science. He's clearly of the set who believes that real science is unknowable and exists on a plane higher than mere mortals can access, and that what we call science now is merely a reflection of how "closed-minded" scientists are. This is a common ruse among true believers: When evidence fails to back up their magical claims, they assert that their pet phenomenon is beyond the range of mere human testing. (In logic, we refer to this as a special pleading.)
I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are—whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.
The Introduction, ‘Science as an Institution’, sets out the major issues in the complex relationship between science and society. The word science may refer to a body of public knowledge, a set of beliefs about the world, the whole range of activities performed by scientists, some subset of those activities that are supposed to be special, the complex of social and political institutions which support and influence the activities of scientists. Jacques Barzun wrote wrote an important book with the unlikely title of Science: The Glorious Entertainment and Popper referred to scientific research as possibly the ultimate example of roundabout production, a concept from Austrian economics. Jarvie surveyed various approaches including the positivist and falsificationist demarcation principles and Merton’s account of the distinguishing features of scientific knowledge.
An exhaustive summation of this outlook is impossible here, but it would have included such obvious realities as the observation that negroes were not humans in the conventional sense; that the “all men are created equal” fluff by Jefferson was never meant to apply to negroes or highly intelligent orangoutangs, however much we may love them or like to see them sing and dance; that just as free men might buy cattle or breed mules, so might they buy and breed negroes, and bring them into territories in which free people might reside.
In Geneva Mises completed the German version of his most important work which later appeared in English as Human Action (1949). Hulsmann has a chapter on The Epistemological Case for Capitalism, reflecting the importance that Mises assigned to the correct methods of investigation. Human Action begins with almost 200 pages of preliminaries including the doctrine that the laws of economics should be based on a priori meditations on the nature of human action. Mises thought that positivism and empiricism worked in the natural sciences but they would be the death of proper economics. However this position adds no value to his economics and it renders his work suspect to other schools of thought that are dedicated to scientific methods.
In the postwar years, Popper no longer demonstrated commitment to reform…He never disavowed piecemeal engineering, but he argued that its purpose was to decrease, not increase, state power. He also showed growing sympathy towards libertarianism, and did little to stop the conservative onslaught of the 1980s.
In Socialism (1922) Mises launched a wide-ranging critique of the doctrines of central planning, the elimination of competitive markets and nationalisation of the means of production. For those with eyes to see, the ultimate collapse of the Soviet empire, and the failures of nationalisation elsewhere, did not come as a surprise. The Scandanvian nations do not refute the hypothesis because they maintain the private sector and largely open markets to fund their welfare provisions.
This opens a new can or worms in which the attempt by the apologists have switched from determining whether or not Joseph had sexual relations to defining what adultery is and defining what a legal marriage is. This becomes an exhausting exercise. The critic typically contends that a definition for adultery is pretty simple: a married person having sexual relations with someone other than their legally married spouse. It becomes convoluted because the apologist wants to reframe the debate by looking at a new interpretation for what constitutes adultery and how one interprets "marriage" and the marriage contract: the apologist contends that the "marriages"/"sealings" are based on God's new interpretation and that they supersede any civil definitions or laws; and the critic takes a simple stance that a legal marriage is one recognized by civil law. (This is an excellent topic to apply to. To convince someone that there are nuanced and different definitions for marriage and adultery, a lot of effort must be spent in weaving that tapestry, including denying or creatively interpreting Joseph's own writings and denials.)
That his purpose was successfully misrepresented at the time, and has been ever since, is not owed exclusively to his careful and lawyerly language going widely unread. It also has to do with the hypocrisy that has always surrounded the slavery issue and the matter of race in general in this country. Northern whites, not being willing openly to admit their own feelings of superiority over “inferior” African Americans, have preferred to impute such “racism” to Southern whites, as if this made the Southerners, also, inferior to themselves, at least morally. In this they have been somewhat like famous modern televangelists thundering against sins of the flesh even as they privately seduced young women or men or were patronizing prostitutes. Only, the truth about Northern whites was not exposed by investigative journalists or trial proceedings. It was desegregation of the public schools that did it. Then the whites showed their true feelings by fleeing to the suburbs.
Gene Ray, better known as the Time Cube guy. It's not really fair to pick on Gene, because he's clearly mentally ill, and he's never convinced anybody of his theories, therefore he's also not hurting anybody. But a study of Gene does provide a pretty good example of what a lot of delusional conspiracy theorists are like.