Barbara Branden's 50th anniversary tribute to "Atlas"


Bidinotto

Recommended Posts

Alfonso,

I sometimes wonder what Bob does here. He knows he will not convince anybody, but he keeps repeating the same old same old in terms of Rand bashing. It never changes and it never gets intelligent. This is not the only Objectivist site Bob has participated on (or does) and the behavior is always the same. (Actually, on OL he is a bit less bombastic.)

Think about the mentality of a person who would go on to a Christian forum for the main purpose of claiming to everyone that God and Christ do not exist, or go on to a kids electronic gaming forum to claim that games lead to brain rot, or go to any forum where like-minded people gather to discuss an area of interest for the main purpose of bashing the interest. He knows he will not convince anyone. He just wants to get a rise out of people so he can feel important.

Here is a good question for him. Why is he not on a Zionist site? Everything I have read up to now leads me to believe that he would be most welcome on one. Maybe it is because people would agree with him and he would not get much attention, thus he would not feel important?

Or is there that inner voice that keeps him up at night whispering that he might be wrong?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alfonso,

I sometimes wonder what Bob does here. He knows he will not convince anybody, but he keeps repeating the same old same old in terms of Rand bashing. It never changes and it never gets intelligent. This is not the only Objectivist site Bob has participated on (or does) and the behavior is always the same. (Actually, on OL he is a bit less bombastic.)

How many times do I have to say I was on Rand's page with regard to economics and proper government functions?

It is her opinions on matters scientific and mathematical that I find her attitude irksome. She was just plain ignorant on these matters. When one is ignorant there are two reasonable courses: be silent or gain knowledge. She did neither.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Peikoff himself ever claimed to be the "intellectual heir"? The closest I've seen to this is a book jacket that says he "has been called Ayn Rand's intellectual heir," but I'm not aware of any evidence that he wrote this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfonso,

I sometimes wonder what Bob does here. He knows he will not convince anybody, but he keeps repeating the same old same old in terms of Rand bashing. It never changes and it never gets intelligent. This is not the only Objectivist site Bob has participated on (or does) and the behavior is always the same. (Actually, on OL he is a bit less bombastic.)

Think about the mentality of a person who would go on to a Christian forum for the main purpose of claiming to everyone that God and Christ do not exist, or go on to a kids electronic gaming forum to claim that games lead to brain rot, or go to any forum where like-minded people gather to discuss an area of interest for the main purpose of bashing the interest. He knows he will not convince anyone. He just wants to get a rise out of people so he can feel important.

Here is a good question for him. Why is he not on a Zionist site? Everything I have read up to now leads me to believe that he would be most welcome on one. Maybe it is because people would agree with him and he would not get much attention, thus he would not feel important?

Or is there that inner voice that keeps him up at night whispering that he might be wrong?

Michael

Michael,

I've read Bob Kolker posts online going back to the mid-90's on a.p.o. and later h.p.o. on usenet. Often I don't agree with many of his criticisms of Rand and Aristotle and some of the tone that he uses occasionally. However, I do sympathize with the empiricist bent he often displays in making the criticisms. He wants people to be comfortable with data, comfortable with math and science and to not kid themselves. Some of his bombastic proclamations aside, those are worthy goals. My guess is that he likes being around people who can craft good arguments and throw his objections their way.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good question for him. Why is he not on a Zionist site? Everything I have read up to now leads me to believe that he would be most welcome on one. Maybe it is because people would agree with him and he would not get much attention, thus he would not feel important?

Or is there that inner voice that keeps him up at night whispering that he might be wrong?

Michael

I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ. Think that ye might be mistaken? -- Oliver Cromwell.

1. I do not go on Zionist sites because I have no sympathy with Zionism, as such.

2. I have been mistaken on many things, but on the deficiencies of Rand and Pope Leonard I am not, and I have documented my case.

3. I would not object to the Objectivists if they showed a little humility in the face of their own ignorance.

People who advocate Objectivism often make a claim to superior knowledge or better thinking techniques. I see no basis for these claims. Long before Rand was born there were thinkers who believed Reality was real, and not a product of thought. There were thinkers who based their logic on the principle of non-contradiction (which is equivalent to the axiom of identity). Long before Rand there were those who realized that humans must consciously grasp the workings of nature. Newton was such a one. But he was a Mystic and a God-Phreak. He would be unwelcome at an Objectivist pow wow as a guest speaker.

Between Aristotle and Rand there was first rate thinking and doing. Claims to Rand's specialness are exaggerated. She was a good novelist who put her finger on one of the flaws of current culture (altruism and wrongful sacrifice). She gets full credit for that. But her other claims are not nearly as well founded.

In addition, she and her acolytes bad-mouth and denigrate their most useful political allies, the libertarians. That is just plain stupid. One does not crap on people who are carrying one's water. It is bad policy to piss in the creek from which one drinks and to shit in the pot in which one cooks his soup. If a limited government movement ever takes off, it will be from a libertarian base, not an O'ist base.

Rand helped found a movement in which she became the Leader. She gathered followers, who were more her sheep than original thinkers. That is a flaw and I stand on that claim.

I really want Objectivists to improve their product. I want them to get rid of the cultish adherence to Rand's errors. They should use their philosophical grounding to do useful and effective things. Like Socrates, I offer my services as a gadfly and a midwife. You guys really need help of this sort.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want Objectivists to improve their product. I want them to get rid of the cultish adherence to Rand's errors. They should use their philosophical grounding to do useful and effective things. Like Socrates, I offer my services as a gadfly and a midwife. You guys really need help of this sort.

Moi`? Seriously, you are of little help as long as you keep reversing the roles of science and philosophy. And if Rand got the definition of logic wrong, does that mean she got logic wrong? You are also absolutely purblind on the subject of morality.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to say I was on Rand's page with regard to economics and proper government functions?

This just means you are a libertarian. Libertarians eschew most philosophy including vertical integration off of axioms and morality except as it might involve rights' violations. If you are asking Objectivists to become libertarians, good luck! It won't happen. If you are asking Objectivists to eschew orthodoxy and ARI religious catechism, this is a place to be home-base wise. Libertarian sites would chew you up and spit you out, however. They aren't into kill a billion here, kill a billion there. We aren't either, but you don't claim to be an Objectivist.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for current societal pathologies, or the illusions ginned up about them, all I can say here that's relevant is this: Albert Jay Nock — whom Rand ought to have listened to much more than she did — noted that we have nothing going in the current ethical and political morass that's "new." Or uniquely threatening. Nothing, in fact, that wasn't ancient when Thucydides wrote his History of the Peloponnesian War nearly 2,400 years ago.

I've probably gone past MSK's strictures by now, so I'll have to thus conclude my remarks in this thread.

I have to say that when x does not generate any expected y the answer regarding many people must be more than an individual failing. It's more than a lack of courage. It's more than a fear of envy. Perhaps x was not enough or complete or right enough or just needed more time too, as has been pointed out.

Having a difference of opinion doesn't violate any MSK strictures I'm aware of.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want Objectivists to improve their product. I want them to get rid of the cultish adherence to Rand's errors. They should use their philosophical grounding to do useful and effective things. Like Socrates, I offer my services as a gadfly and a midwife. You guys really need help of this sort.

Moi`? Seriously, you are of little help as long as you keep reversing the roles of science and philosophy. And if Rand got the definition of logic wrong, does that mean she got logic wrong? You are also absolutely purblind on the subject of morality.

--Brant

Science works and philosophy fails. You think that is the wrong order of things? In a collision between fact and philosophy, philosophy must give way. The facts are gods (so to speak). Philosophy is mental fru fru, at best a formalism and at worst organized opinion. Facts rule, principles sometimes serve.

Morality is human convention. There is no morality (or immorality) in the insensate universe. Nature does not care if we are bad or good. There are no Facts of Morality in the physical realm. Nature laws have nothing to say about Morality. Morality is a product of consciousness and most of the universe is as conscious as a sack full of bricks.

I am not purblind. I am precise and correct.

Morality exists in our heads, not Out There. Atoms and quantum fields do not act according to moral laws.

If you want to argue about the contents of the skulls of various people, you are in the realm of opinion and convention, not fact.

Having said that, I do not object to morality as a convention/protocol for promoting productivity and mutual defense in society. I am open to any moral code that conduces to life and property. By all means let us observe conventions and protocols that keep humans from preying on other humans. It makes for a more pleasant and productive life for humans.

The alternative is as Hobbes described it: life which is nasty, brutish and short.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both Steve and Barbara are wrong because they don't see each other's rightness. Barbara is focused on justice and morality while Steve (and Phil) are looking elsewhere, albeit not exclusively. But Barbara is pretty much at a dead end here, because I don't think she has posited an explanation other than individual failing. This just isn't enough.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want Objectivists to improve their product. I want them to get rid of the cultish adherence to Rand's errors. They should use their philosophical grounding to do useful and effective things. Like Socrates, I offer my services as a gadfly and a midwife. You guys really need help of this sort.

Moi`? Seriously, you are of little help as long as you keep reversing the roles of science and philosophy. And if Rand got the definition of logic wrong, does that mean she got logic wrong? You are also absolutely purblind on the subject of morality.

--Brant

Science works and philosophy fails. You think that is the wrong order of things? In a collision between fact and philosophy, philosophy must give way. The facts are gods (so to speak). Philosophy is mental fru fru, at best a formalism and at worst organized opinion. Facts rule, principles sometimes serve.

Morality is human convention. There is no morality (or immorality) in the insensate universe. Nature does not care if we are bad or good. There are no Facts of Morality in the physical realm. Nature laws have nothing to say about Morality. Morality is a product of consciousness and most of the universe is as conscious as a sack full of bricks.

I am not purblind. I am precise and correct.

Morality exists in our heads, not Out There. Atoms and quantum fields do not act according to moral laws.

If you want to argue about the contents of the skulls of various people, you are in the realm of opinion and convention, not fact.

Having said that, I do not object to morality as a convention/protocol for promoting productivity and mutual defense in society. I am open to any moral code that conduces to life and property. By all means let us observe conventions and protocols that keep humans from preying on other humans. It makes for a more pleasant and productive life for humans.

The alternative is as Hobbes described it: life which is nasty, brutish and short.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want Objectivists to improve their product. I want them to get rid of the cultish adherence to Rand's errors. They should use their philosophical grounding to do useful and effective things. Like Socrates, I offer my services as a gadfly and a midwife. You guys really need help of this sort.

Bob,

If that is your real interest (and ignoring the condescension and just plain errors), why aren't you talking to Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger & Co.?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is your real interest (and ignoring the condescension and just plain errors), why aren't you talking to Peikoff, Schwartz, Binswanger & Co.?

That is easy to answer: that would of course be a huge waste of time. They would never admit that they'd made an error. It's much more useful to point out to people that they should forget that silly bunch of deadwood and that they should think for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I agree with you about the waste of time with them. What I don't understand is the waste of time involved in Bob constantly repeating things like morality is subjective, Galt's motor is proof that Rand was an ignoramus, and so forth here on OL. Isn't that a waste of time, too? Seriously. These pronouncements will convince nobody. They just waste everybody's time. And many of them are offensive.

What's the point?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a different Ayn Rand. His name was Robert A. Heinlein. Read -The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-. This book occupies a place of honor on my shelf right next to -Atlas Shrugged- and -The Dispossessed- (by Ursula Laguin).

I know this fellow (his first name is Bob) who formulated a logical equivalent to Objectivism a year before he had read a single word by Ayn Rand. He called his system Reality Lite.

LOL, though I suspect you weren't joking. Coming up with some similar ideas to Ayn Rand's is hardly the same thing as writing an oeuvre such as Atlas Shrugged. I came up with an ethical framework along similar lines to hers before I ever heard of her. (I've come to think over the years that my framework is actually better because of not making the leaps of logic and not leading to moralism, but that's another story.) It's the particular psychology needed to write Atlas Shrugged which I was talking about.

Ellen

___

I have a similar thought. Rand was a novelist such as I could never be, but her logic was tatty and frayed. My formulation has the virtue of being rigorously founded and is consistent with sound science. That is because I put facts before philosophy. Also I am a mathematician by training and I know how to put together a tight proof. Rand did not have this background. Also I never took the road to moralism, either. Morality is opinion. There are no moral facts. There are no laws of physical reality that imply, determine or specify morality. Not one. Nature does not care if we are good or bad.

As for art, Heinlein was a better story teller. Not that -Atlas Shrugged- is bad but Heinlein stories -rock-. Ursula Le Guin is also a better story teller. Here best political ouvre is -The Dispossessed- which did for anarchism, what Rand did for capitalism. Ayn Rand stories are a showcase for her monologues (some of which were quite good). I think of Ayn Rand as having Victor Hugo envy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given your evaluation above, could you supply us with two or three of what you view as Rand's most spectacular and clear logical errors? Preferably on matters of serious significance, not peripheral issues.

Alfonso

Alfonso, I don't think that what Bob has offered are examples of Rand's logical errors per se, but simply (IHO) her errors, ways in which she screwed up.

By contrast, I have two really glaring examples of her illogicality, which I keep sharing, seemingly to no avail. But here they are again.

(1) In "The Age of Envy," Rand keeps cycling back and forth between including in and excluding from the human race the envy-ridden folks she calls "haters." Either they're human beings, or they're not. (Law of the Excluded Middle)

(2) In "Art and Cognition," Rand blatantly contradicts herself in arguing that architecture is a form of art, that art is the re-creation of reality, but that architecture does not re-create reality. (Law of Contradiction)

For further details, see my essay of the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction on my website, and this post on Objectivist Living: Rand's Contradiction Regarding Architecture

I'm all for Bob being a gadwife and a midfly. You go, boy! :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a different Ayn Rand. His name was Robert A. Heinlein. Read -The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-. This book occupies a place of honor on my shelf right next to -Atlas Shrugged- and -The Dispossessed- (by Ursula Laguin).

I know this fellow (his first name is Bob) who formulated a logical equivalent to Objectivism a year before he had read a single word by Ayn Rand. He called his system Reality Lite.

LOL, though I suspect you weren't joking. Coming up with some similar ideas to Ayn Rand's is hardly the same thing as writing an oeuvre such as Atlas Shrugged. I came up with an ethical framework along similar lines to hers before I ever heard of her. (I've come to think over the years that my framework is actually better because of not making the leaps of logic and not leading to moralism, but that's another story.) It's the particular psychology needed to write Atlas Shrugged which I was talking about.

Ellen

___

I have a similar thought. Rand was a novelist such as I could never be, but her logic was tatty and frayed. My formulation has the virtue of being rigorously founded and is consistent with sound science. That is because I put facts before philosophy. Also I am a mathematician by training and I know how to put together a tight proof. Rand did not have this background. Also I never took the road to moralism, either. Morality is opinion. There are no moral facts. There are no laws of physical reality that imply, determine or specify morality. Not one. Nature does not care if we are good or bad.

As for art, Heinlein was a better story teller. Not that -Atlas Shrugged- is bad but Heinlein stories -rock-. Ursula Le Guin is also a better story teller. Here best political ouvre is -The Dispossessed- which did for anarchism, what Rand did for capitalism. Ayn Rand stories are a showcase for her monologues (some of which were quite good). I think of Ayn Rand as having Victor Hugo envy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Given your evaluation above, could you supply us with two or three of what you view as Rand's most spectacular and clear logical errors? Preferably on matters of serious significance, not peripheral issues.

Alfonso

Alfonso, I don't think that what Bob has offered are examples of Rand's logical errors per se, but simply (IHO) her errors, ways in which she screwed up.

By contrast, I have two really glaring examples of her illogicality, which I keep sharing, seemingly to no avail. But here they are again.

(1) In "The Age of Envy," Rand keeps cycling back and forth between including in and excluding from the human race the envy-ridden folks she calls "haters." Either they're human beings, or they're not. (Law of the Excluded Middle)

(2) In "Art and Cognition," Rand blatantly contradicts herself in arguing that architecture is a form of art, that art is the re-creation of reality, but that architecture does not re-create reality. (Law of Contradiction)

For further details, see my essay of the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction on my website, and this post on Objectivist Living: Rand's Contradiction Regarding Architecture

I'm all for Bob being a gadwife and a midfly. You go, boy! :-)

REB

Roger -

Bob's first listed "error" (his sequence, not mine) by Rand was her use of the fiction of Galt's motor in Atlas Shrugged. He states (repeatedly, many times in OL) that her inclusion of something impossible in a work of fiction means that she had a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

I continue to say . . . inclusion of such a device in a novel no more means that one misunderstands something important in physics than did H. G. Wells using the plot device of time travel. Fiction and nonfiction are not the same thing.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in Barbara's corner on this issue.

I've participated in countless internet fora, before most people knew they even existed, when I was the only one supporting a particular point of view, and getting a lot of flak for it, and occasionally a quiet little private e-mail from one of the participants would trickle in, in tiny little apologetic letters, saying, "For what it's worth, I agree with you."

That kind of thing makes me want to bash my head against the wall. Why in hell can't they just SAY SO? In PUBLIC?? It's not just that I don't like to be the only one out there sticking out my neck. It's that it's painful to watch moral cowardice. To paraphrase Rand, there are people in the world rotting in prisons because they dared to speak their minds on important issues, and they're risking their lives for that right. People fought and bled and died to win me the right to say what I think. I'll be damned if I keep silent for fear of a fleeting frown of disapproval on the face of a stranger.

I see it with friends in group discussions among friends. I see it at work, when I'm the only one willing to mention the elephant in the room, and afterwards others sigh with relief (or wince with discomfort, but either way, the issue then gets resolved). It's everywhere these days. What's with people, that they're so damned afraid to say what they think and mean what they say?

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

So you think morality is a matter of opinion and good and evil cannot be objectively known?

Michael

Huh? What is the premise from which you endeavor to draw this false conclusion?

Are you pissed or puzzled because I'm encouraging Bob in his gadfly/midwife role? Does he have to be right all the time in order to be worthwhile? If so, I guess I'd better shut up, too! :-/

Bob is 100% right that Rand's logic is not always sound. I may not agree with some of his examples, but it is abundantly clear to me that Rand has held illogical positions, sometimes even arguing for them with explicit illogic.

Do you (or anyone else out there? hello!?) have nothing to say about the two glaring examples of Rand's illogic that I offered? Why the fixation on beating up on Bob (and anyone who encourages him), because you and he don't see eye to eye?

Why is it that the ~bogus~ examples (some offered by Bob) of Rand's illogicality get all the attention -- all the fire and brimstone -- while the ~genuine~ examples get brushed over???

Frustrated in California,

Roger B.

P.S. -- I finished transcribing Lecture 3 of Barbara's Efficient Thinking lectures last night, and I sent a proposal to Will Thomas on "Tetrachotomies -- Who Needs Them?" for next summer's TAS seminar. (Just so you know that I'm not spending the bulk of my time on this negative-slanted crap.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob is 100% right that Rand's logic is not always sound. I may not agree with some of his examples, but it is abundantly clear to me that Rand has held illogical positions, sometimes even arguing for them with explicit illogic.

Do you (or anyone else out there? hello!?) have nothing to say about the two glaring examples of Rand's illogic that I offered? Why the fixation on beating up on Bob (and anyone who encourages him), because you and he don't see eye to eye?

I may come up with some examples of my own later, but it's now bedtime for me...

Why is it that the ~bogus~ examples (some offered by Bob) of Rand's illogicality get all the attention -- all the fire and brimstone -- while the ~genuine~ examples get brushed over???

Frustrated in California,

Ah, now you may understand how frustrated I sometimes feel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

So you think morality is a matter of opinion and good and evil cannot be objectively known?

Michael

Huh? What is the premise from which you endeavor to draw this false conclusion?

Are you pissed or puzzled because I'm encouraging Bob in his gadfly/midwife role? Does he have to be right all the time in order to be worthwhile? If so, I guess I'd better shut up, too! :-/

Bob is 100% right that Rand's logic is not always sound. I may not agree with some of his examples, but it is abundantly clear to me that Rand has held illogical positions, sometimes even arguing for them with explicit illogic.

Do you (or anyone else out there? hello!?) have nothing to say about the two glaring examples of Rand's illogic that I offered? Why the fixation on beating up on Bob (and anyone who encourages him), because you and he don't see eye to eye?

Why is it that the ~bogus~ examples (some offered by Bob) of Rand's illogicality get all the attention -- all the fire and brimstone -- while the ~genuine~ examples get brushed over???

Frustrated in California,

Roger B.

P.S. -- I finished transcribing Lecture 3 of Barbara's Efficient Thinking lectures last night, and I sent a proposal to Will Thomas on "Tetrachotomies -- Who Needs Them?" for next summer's TAS seminar. (Just so you know that I'm not spending the bulk of my time on this negative-slanted crap.)

If Bob seriously wants to focus attention on some specific and substantive issues, he would be well-advised not to keep leading off with bogus examples such as this nonsense about the fictional device of Galt's motor.

I haven't seen much fire and brimstone - just some clear and consistent rebuttal, based on the facts of reality and the ordinary conventions of fiction writing.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Actually I agree with particular instances of Rand criticism like the instances you mentioned (and even agree with some of Bob's). But which part of "ignoramus" or "all morality is subjective" or any number of wide sweeping negative generalizations Bob mentions do you agree with? And which time? The first time or thousandth? They never change.

I thought the idea of Rand criticism was to analyze her specific errors, not repeat them with another slant—like oversimplify by saying she was all this or all that. From what I have read so far, Bob merely makes Rand-like oversimplifications of her (while getting many points all wrong) like she did with other philosophers, and makes voluminous posts to keep the repetition going.

That is way beyond "gadfly" and I don't even see "midwife" on the horizon.

If he has a so-called right to keep this irritating babble up, I certainly have a right to call it the crap it is.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Actually I agree with particular instances of Rand criticism like the instances you mentioned (and even agree with some of Bob's). But which part of "ignoramus" or "all morality is subjective" or any number of wide sweeping negative generalizations Bob mentions do you agree with? And which time? The first time or thousandth? They never change.

I thought the idea of Rand criticism was to analyze her specific errors, not repeat them with another slant—like oversimplify by saying she was all this or all that. From what I have read so far, Bob merely makes Rand-like oversimplifications of her (while getting many points all wrong) like she did with other philosophers, and makes voluminous posts to keep the repetition going.

That is way beyond "gadfly" and I don't even see "midwife" on the horizon.

If he has a so-called right to keep this irritating babble up, I certainly have a right to call it the crap it is.

Michael

Michael, I agree with you that "all morality is subjective" or "logic is entirely deductive" are false. (If those are not Bob's positions, he is welcome to disavow them. I know he applauds Rand's attack on altruism and her advocacy of capitalism, but it seems that he regards these things as matters of opinion, rather than based on fact.)

But I agree with Bob that Peikoff (and I presume, Rand) were ignoramuses about -- or, at best, woefully ill-informed about and biased against -- modern science. Bob is absolutely correct about the "success" of quantum mechanics, while Peikoff has repeatedly decried quantum mechanics and 20th century physics in general.

As recently as 2002 (Induction in Physics and Philosophy, lecture 5), speaking of one of the sources of faulty induction, Peikoff said: "Over-generalizations, in which limitation to a specific context has been over-looked, are soon enough shown to have exceptions in some new context. And you know that Einstein was supposed to have shown that Newton holds only when you deal with speeds that don’t approach the speed of light, if I dare say that Newton over-generalized, which I hate to say, especially in favor of somebody in the 20th century."

That's not exactly a subtle bias, and I think that it is fairly widespread thoughout at least the Loyalist wing of the movement. It is certainly typical Peikoff -- though, I hasten to add, not characteristic of David Harriman, a physicist, who is writing the book on Peikoff's above-mentioned lecture series. I am hopeful that Harriman's book will not repeat Peikoff's worst gaffes.

Not being an expert myself, but having some background in physics and philosophy, and certainly not being a knee-jerk Loyalist, I feel confident and comfortable in saying this. It is very possible for a scientist to discover a major pattern of behavior in the physical universe, to describe/formulate it accurately so that it serves as the basis for reliable prediction and for technological application, yet be presented with a seriously flawed ontological framework. Just one example: the claim that a particle (or any entity) can travel from point A to point B without...somehow, in some form...traveling through the interval between them is illogical and ontologically impossible. Any correct explanation of the appearance that it does so must provide an account of the manner in which the particle gets from point A to point B, other than: "it just disappeared at point A and reappeared at point B, period."

That latter is the invocation of an a-causal miracle, not science -- and there are modern physicists and philosophers of science who revel in such mystical crap. It's as though scientific observation were frozen at the level of observing that a stick appears bent in water, and claiming that sticks actually bend when put in water, rather than seeking an explanation (in the science of optics) for the appearance of their bending in water. It's really as much being concrete-bound, as it is mystical, which is a nifty trick, though a very aggravating one. That (in part, at least) is what Peikoff (and I, for that matter) find objectionable about modern science -- not its obviously successful track record in experimental predication and technological spin-offs, that Bob so rightly applauds.

A non-ignoramus perspective on the controversies surrounding quantum mechanics would have to be at least as nuanced as the above. Rand and Peikoff, with their animosity toward the flawed ontological claims of some modern physicists, fell short. And some modern physicists, with their flawed ontologies, were not much better -- except in practical terms, since a lot of our modern wonders are owed to their correct descriptions/formulations of observed lawful behavior, which are correct in spite of their mystical, illogical ontologies. I hope I have indicated that there is a saner, better balanced middle ground here...

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I am NOT defending Peikoff's view of quantum mechanics. I don't know what Rand thought of this. Her journal notes from 1946 of an interview with Oppenheimer for the unmade movie Top Secret about the atomic bomb shows that she was aware of the importance quantum theory had for scientists of Oppenheimer's stature. Here is part of the journal entry dated January 8, 1946 (Journals, p. 328):

Staff of laboratory at maximum of 3,500—scientific staff about 900. In the last three years—scientific work at Los Alamos, production at the other two labs [located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington].

Early part—working out scientific schemes for the other two plants. Group at first meeting being told about work in single teams.

All 900 knew the scientific principles—and others after six months residence were told what they were making.

They kept it secret without rules—merely by making it a principle to keep it secret.

Bohr was not closely associated—brought some slight information—not essential to work.

Fermi contributed enormously.

Scientific high points (prior to project):

Rutherford—discovery of nucleus.

Quantum theory.

[James] Chadwick—discovery of neutron.

Dr. Bush important, "had President's ear." [Dr. Vannevar Bush was director of the government's Office of Scientific Research and Development. ]

Refugee scientists responsible.

Summer of 1942—decision to manufacture bomb was made. Theoretical work was done.

That's all I am aware of. And I agree that this does not explain that silly statement about science being dead at the beginning of CUI.

I always had the impression that Rand's real preoccupation with science was political. Here is a quote about science and ethics from a 1962 speech Rand presented at MIT, "To Young Scientists" (reprinted in The Voice of Reason, pp. 13-14).

It took centuries and volumes of writing to bring our culture to its present state of bankruptcy—and volumes would have to be written to expose, counteract, and avert the disaster of a total intellectual collapse. But of all the deadly theories by means of which you are now being destroyed, I would like to warn you about one of the deadliest and most crucial: the alleged dichotomy of science and ethics.

You have heard that theory so often and from so many authorities that most of you now take it for granted, as an axiom, as the one absolute taught to you by those who proclaim that there are no absolutes. It is the doctrine that man's science and ethics—or his knowledge and values, or his body and soul—are two separate, antagonistic aspects of his existence, and that man is caught between them, as a precarious, permanent traitor to their conflicting demands.

Science, they tell you, is the province of reason—but ethics, they say, is the province of a higher power, which man's impotent, fallible intellect must not be so presumptuous as to challenge. What power? Why, feelings.

(That's Bob's explicit view, except in other words.) Shortly thereafter in that essay, Rand made the following astute observation:

It means that you, as scientists, are competent to discover new knowledge—but not competent to judge for what purpose that knowledge is to be used.

I wonder what happened when this kind of sentiment turns into "Rand was an ignoramus about science." If that is not enough to be condemnatory of those who claim—in the name of science—that morality is subjective, how about an image in the vein that Rand does best (Hugoesque dramatic contrast)? (Same essay, pp. 15-16.)

It is thus that the world reached the nightmare spectacle which surpasses any horror story of science fiction: two Soviet capsules circling in "outer space," as the alleged triumph of an advanced science—while here on earth, a young boy lies bleeding to death and screaming for help, at the foot of the wall in East Berlin, shot for attempting to escape and left there by the prehistorical monsters from twenty thousand centuries deep: the Soviet rulers.

THIS is what I protest against with Bob's machine-gun oversimplifications, which ignore that result while he explains what a numskull Rand was about math, logic and science. It's as if Rand never wrote anything correct about these things. I have the impression that you have not read many of Bob's countless more bombastic posts.

As to quantum physics, I have been discussing this for some time. I finally understood the double-slit experiment by watching a large number of videos on YouTube (and other sites). See here for a selection of some excellent explanatory ones for beginners. Here is a nice summary of the different theories. Most recently, Dragonfly presented some links I am examining about QM (see here). My response here shows more or less where I am at now. btw - None of this is priority for me right now, but it consumed a lot of time.

In short, I do not criticize Bob for his criticisms of Peikoff's view of science (especially after some of the things I have read and heard from that quarter). I even agree with some of his examples of disagreement with Rand. But NOT the gross oversimplifications he constantly attributes to her. In particular, I take strong issue with his incessant preaching. (There is no other word for it.) He even has the gall to say he has to preach to straighten us poor ignorant Objectivists out because we preach (and apparently preach the wrong dogma for his taste). Bunk. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit.

And think about what is being preached: morality is not based on fact and science proves this. Morality is only subjective. (Among other gems.)

Sorry, I do not extend tolerance to unlimited preaching and especially not unlimited preaching of that. A little, OK, but it gets irritating in large doses. Blogs are free for those who have that itch and easy as pie to set up. Nobody is going to preach nonstop around here about anything without me bitching to the high heavens (at the very least). OL is for discussion.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not exactly a subtle bias, and I think that it is fairly widespread thoughout at least the Loyalist wing of the movement. It is certainly typical Peikoff -- though, I hasten to add, not characteristic of David Harriman, a physicist, who is writing the book on Peikoff's above-mentioned lecture series. I am hopeful that Harriman's book will not repeat Peikoff's worst gaffes.

Harriman is a full fledged idiot. See for example the incredible nonsense he spouts about physics in Peikoff's dimwit lectures. On Daniel's site "physicistdave" gave other examples of Harriman's idiocy. If Peikoff says something stupid about physics, he's merely faithfully copying Harriman's howlers.

Not being an expert myself, but having some background in physics and philosophy, and certainly not being a knee-jerk Loyalist, I feel confident and comfortable in saying this. It is very possible for a scientist to discover a major pattern of behavior in the physical universe, to describe/formulate it accurately so that it serves as the basis for reliable prediction and for technological application, yet be presented with a seriously flawed ontological framework. Just one example: the claim that a particle (or any entity) can travel from point A to point B without...somehow, in some form...traveling through the interval between them is illogical and ontologically impossible.

Now you're falling in the Peikovian-Newtonian trap. You apparently think that your classical world-view, in which particles are always sharply localized and follow definite trajectories is somehow the only possible world view, and that if QM tells us something different, that it must be possible to fit it somehow in the Procrustes bed of classical physics anyway, to reduce it to familiar terms. Wrong. That our intuition of classical mechanics is so strongly formed by living in a macroscopic world does not mean that our intuition can't be dead wrong in the (sub)atomic domain. That our notion of a particle moving along a well-defined trajectory is so familiar to us does not imply that it would be somehow logically necessary. It is not. And that is the big problem in understanding QM, especially by laymen, as they don't have the experience of working many years with QM and getting somewhat familiar with its "weird" aspects. It is the modern scientist who has the correct ontology, not a layman like Peikoff who clings to his outdated Newtonian ontology. Philosophers who are no scientists are lagging hopelessly behind with their ontological ideas, they just don't understand that these are outdated, and therefore they become the laughing stock of modern scientists, no matter how much they are babbling about the "corruption of modern science". Nobody takes them seriously, except other philosophers who are equally ignorant in science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now