I am not an Objectivist, nor have I ever been. However, after reading -Atlas Shrugged- in 1959 or 1960 (I was in my mid twenties at the time) a flash of hope arose in me. Here was a work and a movement that asked and made All the Important Questions accessible to the non-academic public. Finally a nucleus around which those in the great public might organize and focus their pro-libertarian or pro-liberty inclinations and aspirations. I even subscribed to The Objectivist. Then in 1968 came the great disillusionment. The fallout of which was to promote the prominence of a man who has (in my estimation) a second rate mind, to wit, Leonard Peikof, and then the split with David Kelley. At this point I had enough of the movement. I resolved to cherry pick what I considered to be the best that the Objectivist folk had to offer and ignore the rest.

My great disappointment with the Objectivist movement has been its bigoted and anti-intellectual denigration of modern science, particularly physics promoted by prominent Objectivists. Not that there are not serious issues in physics that really need attention. There most certainly are. But the intellectuals associated with the Objectivist movement, largely have missed out on this important area. Physics begets Engineering which begets Technology which is the only thing that is going to keep our nation competitive in the world economy.

And now all this in-fighting. God dammit. Do you know what this looks like to outsiders? It is what we call in Yiddish -a shondah-, a shameful thing.

I will close with a small joke:

There is a ship wreck and the survivors swim toward an island.

Two Englishmen come ashore and go to opposite ends of the island because they have not been introduced.

Two Germans come ashore and build an autobahn across the island.

Two Americans come ashore and open a fast food chain.

Two Objectivists come ashore and start three Objectivst discussion groups. One that each will post to and a third that neither will have anything to do with. *

Ba'al Chatzaf

*in the original version of the joke, two Jews come ashore and build three synagogues, one that each attends and a third that neither will set foot in.

Bob,

For an "outsider," you sure post a lot on Objectivist sites.

I certainly don't see you going anywhere anytime soon. So regardless of what it "looks like" to you, I don't see any practical effect. Some of your comments don't look very good to Objectivists, either.

Michael

i think one can separate the "movement" (LOL) of Objectivism from the philosophy. So one can be an objectivist and yet maintain strong distate for the things you mentioned. By Objectivism/objectivist I am referring to Ayn Rand's works of philosophy and not any others'. Nor am I referring to her personality foibles.

Good joke!

Not as much as I'd like anyway. The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in. The fictional characters in AS for example support an us-them view and the ideas included in "Philophical Detection" led directly to "Fact and Value" in endorsing the distortion of and condemning of an opponent's view.

Any attempt to separate Objectivism from the Body of Rand, in my eyes anyway, pretty well has to be an attack on the Objectivist philosophy if you want any break in areas ranging from music, american history, or sex.

Ba'al (Bob?):

~ Gotta admit (as Cartman would say, "Gah-Dammit!"), the joke w-a-s funny. Mainly because, nowadays, for those of us in-the-know, quite believable...literally; I mean, look at the most recent goings-on (going-ons?), right?

~ However, according to your complaint herein, your dis-illusions seem not about the 'philosophy', but, with the 'movement', as it's...splinteredly (d?)evolved; if, indeed, 'movement' is the appropriate term here. I'd call them 'movementS', clearly in differing directions. Whatever, you've made clear that your prob is with their take on certain 'scientific' views.

~ What would *you* say that the 'philosophy' itself, (as Rand would add...'per se'), implies about these scientific views, which you would thereby disagree with?

LLAP
J:D

Fair question. Objectivism (the philosophy) has a 90 + percent overlap with my own philosophy Reality Lite ™. My main point of departure from the Objectivists is in the areas of morality and aesthetics. I consider morality a condition that arises from the fact the humans live in families and communities. True hermit humans are so rare as to be negligible. Morality and ethics is about how to relate to others. I also consider aesthetics purely subjective. A matter of taste. One man's Rembrant is another man's Picasso. On the matter of ontology the O'ists and I are on the same page. Reality is Real. Thee is an Out There out there. On the matter of knowledge, all things known are ultimately derived from what is experienced through the senses. Facts first (what is Out There), feelings, inferences and hunches second. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.

I also consider Romanticism pure drek. I take things as they are, not as I would like them to be. My likes and dislikes are not a requirement on Nature to satisfy. So in that sense I am a naturalist. What is, is. What can be? Who knows?

As to Man being heroic. Weeeeeell. Some are and some are not. But we are all the smartest apes in the Monkey House. I take humans to be the latest version of the hominid order. We are 95 percent rational 52 percent of the time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I like the joke too.

Romanticism is a style of art, art being a selective recreation of reality based on the artist's metaphysical value judgments (AR paraphrase). Art is about a person imagining their ideal world, or commenting on how things could be. Sure it can also be a comment on how things are or were.

Who knows what can be? No one. But that's irrelevant precisely because it is art. It's not a history text or a news photo.

Romanticism isn't the be-all and end-all but it's quite the opposite of drek.

As to man being heroic, that is an ideal. Art is about ideals, not strictly about representing reality.

I gave up idealism for lent about forty years ago. I take things as they are, although I do not always accept or acquiesce to things as they are. What is, is. What can be changed? One must see. I see the human race as a blunderful species. Somehow we muck and grind our way through. Since I don't expect too much I am rarely disappointed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What can be changed? A lot. We must make plans, imagine, brainstorm and work hard and smart to make our ideals, the best in us, become 'what is'.

George, it's generational. You're a young man talking to a grandpa. You're both right. I'm halfway in the middle, most of my arc already baked in. Now I'm waiting to see whether it made any difference. Sometimes we don't get to see results in our lifetime. Anyway, I wanted to say hello because you want to be a novelist. Long , long row to hoe. You'll need every atom of that optimism and idealism.

To some extent this is required for any body of ideas to be coherent. A philosophy becomes meaningless if there's isn't something outside of it to bound what it is from what it is not.

Objectivism says the individual is inviolate. If someone says, well, that's nice, but we need mandatory income taxes and we need some regulation and abortion has to be illegal, then they are plainly occupying an incorrect philosophical position with respect to Objectivism.

How can an Objectivist have any other reaction but to repudiate such a person as an Objectivist? In other words, if such a person claims to be an Objectivist, it is a falsehood and must be identified as such.

Less significant differences of opinion or interpretation might not warrant such a reaction. I like the idea of building a big tent around the solid tenets of Objectivism.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of all the schisms. From what I have read they seem like molehills made into mountains. But at some level this so-called "us-them" thinking is an absolute requirement of any serious philosophy and I wouldn't have Objectivism without it. That's not to say that we can't dialog with others who aren't Objectivists.

So I don't see how what you call the 'us-them' thinking in her written works of philosophy is necessarily a problem. Maybe you can elaborate?

Edit: Thanks Wolf.

This is an equivocation between "body of ideas" and "ideas of individual adherents". A body of ideas does not require naming who does and does not belong in order to be coherent.

Furthermore, I think it has been harmful to the cause of individual rights for Objectivists to be so obsessed with who does and does not subscribe to the whole philosophy.

Whether or not someone is truly "Objectivist" is a matter for the individual to decide himself. He can reap the benefits of practicing a rational philosophy consistent--or not. It is no skin off of anyone's nose if he does not except that individual. And it is simply a religion if the presumption is made for the individual as to which parts of the philosophy are true or not. Everyone should accept only those parts of the philosophy they can agree with.

On the other hand, it is crucial for fellow rights-lovers to band together against the collectivists. Objectivism is an abysmal failure as a cultural movement, precisely because it divides those who would have common ground on this most important social cause rather than unite us. If the Founding Fathers, who so-called "Objectivists" so loudly proclaim as heros, were among us, then you can be certain that those very same Objectivists would decry them as evil and viciously juxtapose images of them with symbols of death. As TAS recently has done to Ron Paul.

Self-proclaimed Objectivists have made themselves irrelevant to the culture--and sadly, given how they act, that is a good thing.


Shayne

Maybe the strong emphasis on "individualism" in objectivism works against forming a relatively strong unified movement, like we have witnessed in science. In science there are methods in place for dispute resolution, mainly the scientific method, etc., but objectivism has no such empirical grounding.

Of course not.

However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism. Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises.


Shayne

If I need an authority to do that for me then the philosophy isn't a coherent body of knowledge in the first place. So you're making a circular argument.


Shayne

I think that is an exaggeration of what he is saying.

I think the failure of objectivism to congeal as a movement may have something to do with these phenomena:

- AR's most popular work, Atlas Shrugged, is very open to wrong interpretations of what her philosophy is. While it caught the attention of a lot of good people for all the right reasons it also was used by small-minded people to jump to all the wrong conclusions.
- The world is still very much in the collectivist grip, even in the caplistic-ish nations. Many hold self-sacrifice as their fundamental ideal, refuse to accept the concept of personal responsibility and demand social safety nets from their governments. That is a huge barrier.
- AR said she didn't want a movement IIRC (?). It seemed like she worked against any kind of movement or organization. She badmouthed the Libertarians, a lesser evil. In fact I think she said people shouldn't even vote, or maybe that was Peikoff. In any case, Objectivism seems to be about teaching, learning, writing and speaking; and not about organizing or working for change, if you listen to Ayn Rand.

I don't remember saying "an authority" was needed.

It would be fine if ARI viewed itself as a teaching organization. But they don't. They brainwash Objectivists into thinking that political activism is wrong. They not only do not encourage like minds to band together for common cause, they positively discourage such activity. They *are* activists--against activism. And part of their agenda is this divisive, faction-creating, pseudo-religion purity thing. They, and TAS, have created an absolute mess. They are realizing Plato's "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."



Any barrier is too huge if you not only don't bother trying to breach it, but worse, discourage other men from doing so.


Shayne

Well you implied it before, and yet again just now by not denying the implication. And if you don't think authority is needed, then what are you saying? That you wholeheartedly agree with my position here? I mean if all you're saying is that I've not interpreted you correctly and you wholeheartedly embrace my view, then I'm not about to argue with you.


Shayne

You are projecting something onto what I said. I never implied it and because of that I have no need to deny the nonexistent implication that you projected.

I thought I was clear but I'll restate. Mike 11 said "The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in [ to Objectivism]". I said that without some amount of drawing lines delineating what is consistent with the philosophy and what is not, the philosophy becomes meaningless.

I disagree.



This is the equivocation I mentioned earlier. To say that a philosophy is this and not that does not imply an us/them dichotomy. To draw lines is precisely: to identify what any philosophy is. That does not imply that any philosophy requires puritanical us-them thinking.


Shayne

What I am saying is that a clearly defined philosophy such as objectivism requires a certain amount of "us-them" thinking in order for it remain meaningful; in order for it to keep it's integrity. We say "I am, therefore I'll think." (AR), they say "I think, therefore I am." (EK). There is no way to reconcile these two statements. They conflict. Therefore, to put it crudely, there is "us" and there is "them" and never the twain shall meet. I know very little about the objectivist schisms and am not attempting to comment on them.

I'm not equivocating and my arguments are not circular. Your choice of words borders on insulting and may be detrimental to a free exchange of ideas.

I plan to make this my last post on this thread.

You continue to equivocate while disagreeing with me in spite of refusing to address my points.



Us-them thinking. Ironic.


Shayne

Ba'al:

~ You speak of mucho 'overlap' (in your post #6) re O'ism and *your* philosophy, though you stress an explication of the differences (granted: I asked; but, unexpected prelude, ntl). I shan't get into your prob about its views on aesthetics, but have a question about your prob re its-and-your view of the basis re morality/ethics.

~ You bottom-line see "Morality and ethics is about how to relate to others" arguing as the basis that "True hermit humans are so rare as to be negligable."

~ This whole subject re the terms themselves 'morals/morality' and 'ethics' is itself a bit tricky to discuss.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

~ Morals and Ethics are 2 sides of the same coin, like bees and honey: ya can't have one without the o-t-h-e-r. Some religions and philosophies stress 'morals/morality' (proper values-to-act-for) as the priority starting-point to argue what derivatively are the proper ethics (proper actions-to-take) to follow; others reverse the priority starting-point. (Btw, in 'secular' philosophy, morals/values discussed as the priority are categorized as 'axiological' concerns.)

~ Buddhism, which I believe started as a 'philosophy' (and later devolved), stressed Ethics in social-relating (just as you apparently see the whole shebang.) Re terminological use, I'm tempted to agree it being properly used that way, if made the priority to imply what 'values' to act for...making it slightly different from meanings re Morals.

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

~ So, from what I gather, you're looking at Ethics 1st (a la Buddhistically), seeing implications about Morals as 2nd. Yet, you know that O'ism starts with Morals (proper values) 1st, deriving implications about Ethics (proper actions) as 2nd. Can we agree on that?

~ If so...then, contrary to O'ism (in Galt's speech about a desert island castaway), you see Robinson Crusoe as having no human need for...morality...correct? In which case, you find the term 'morality/morals' to be irrelevent to a single individual UNTIL they interact with others, correct?

~ If so...why? Merely because such is statistically 'negligable?' That would make DaVinci, Einstein, et al such also, ergo, worth ignoring; so, there must be some other 'why.' What would that be?

LLAP
J:D

This quote might help to explain Objectivism’s hostility to modern physics. Whether or not individualism is going to be overrun by collectivism is to some extent an empirical question, and can be answered by looking at human history.

However, since it is an Objectivist tenet that the moral is the practical, the writer simply assumes the claim is mistaken without further investigation.

That seems to be a fairly standard practice among Objectivists – as it is among most people, at least in areas close to their hearts. However, since modern physics apparently transgresses certain tenets of Objectivism, the science goes, the tenets stay.

On the contrary, you are just presumptuous. You haven't the slightest clue what I "assume". On top of that, you lack vision.


Shayne

Brendan,

Not all Objectivists are hostile to modern physics. For example, I started on my own layman's journey into the land of QM (see here and here) to see what all the fuss was about. Frankly, I became fascinated. Really cool stuff.

As a true individualist, not one Objectivist leader speaks for me. I speak for me.

But then again, I consider Objectivism to be a body of thought, not a religion or a tribe. This puts me at odds with many Objectivist leaders and Objectivist critics from the get-go.

Michael

All Objectivists are hostile to the notion of inherent incomprehensibility or the notion that having an equation is a good substitute for having a causal understanding.


Shayne

Shayne,

Of course. Where is that denied in modern physics? Some scientists and science people deny causality, but that is all I have seen.

I have seen more instances where causality is difficult to ascertain because what is observed and tested is weird. But the continued testing is proof that scientists are looking for the right causes. They are not denying causality. They are seeking it with the best thinking they can muster.

Some orthodox Objectivists want to limit physics to their understanding of the universe instead of making good use of the fundamental axioms and observe first, then integrate. These are the people Objectivist critics like to lampoon and mock (with good reason, in my opinion). Even you come down hard on a tendency sometimes found in ARI intellectuals to deduce reality from principles and adhere to that conclusion even though what they observe contradicts it.

Michael

Michael,

People like Brendan like to put up a strawman to attack Objectivists about their views on physics. They should do less guessing about who means what and do more reading of people such as Dr. Travis Norsen, an Objectivist who has a basically rational perspective on the issue.


Shayne

Shayne,

Let's help them.

Dr. Travis Norsen at Marlboro College

Articles by Dr. Travis Narsen on eprintweb.org
Articles listed as of today (with links - NOTE - These are PDF files):

First Order Kaon Condensation in Neutron Stars: Finite Size Effects in the Mixed Phase by Travis Norsen and Sanjay Reddy (October 2000)
Strangeness Nucleation in Neutron Star Matter by Travis Norsen (January 2002)
Mixed Kaon Condensation in CFL Matter by Andrei Kryjevski and Travis Norsen (February 2002)
Einstein's Boxes by Travis Norsen (April 2004)
EPR and Bell Locality by Travis Norsen (August 2004)
Quantum Theory: Interpretation Cannot be Avoided by Eric Dennis and Travis Norsen (August 2004)
Bell Locality and the Nonlocal Character of Nature by Travis Norsen (January 2006)
Intelligent Design in the Physics Classroom? by Travis Norsen (March 2006)
Counter-Factual Meaningfulness and the Bell and CHSH Inequalities by Travis Norsen (June 2006)
Against `Realism' by Travis Norsen (July 2006)
Comment on "Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment" by Travis Norsen(November 2006)
J.S. Bell's Concept of Local Causality by Travis Norsen (July 2007)

I haven't read any of this it yet, but I skimmed some of it and it looks very competent. The links are here. I hope they are useful.

Michael

I have read several of Norsen's papers. He knows his stuff. He is a genuine physicist who happens to be an O'ist. I doubt that there are a dozen like Norsen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I will act as a third to Shayne and Bob's recommendation of Travis Norsen. Having only taken one course on Special Relativity and about two weeks worth of General Relativity along with about the equivalent of half a semester of QM in a physical chemistry course along with some independent reading, I'm not fully qualified to comment on much of what he has written. I did read one paper of his on QM about 4 years ago and as far as I could follow, he gets the science right. I have toned down my criticism of ARI on this subject because their inclusion of Norsen is a hopeful sign.

Jim

Here is the original argument: “Maybe the strong emphasis on "individualism" in objectivism works against forming a relatively strong unified movement, like we have witnessed in science.”

This is your reply: “What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism.”

Now of course the writer was not saying that individualism will always be overturned by collectivism. He was saying that the Objectivist emphasis on individualism works against forming a unified movement.

This issue can be investigated. Since individualism is a major aspect of Objectivism, and since Objectivists have found it difficult to forge a united movement, one could usefully speculate that there might be a connection between the two.

You failed to address that issue, instead substituting one more to your liking.

Then: “Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises.”

Here you offer a rationalist formulation, with no further argument or evidence, clearly in the belief that this formulation trumps any evidence. Looks like an assumption to me.

That’s fair enough, but I did modify my statement to: “That seems to be a fairly standard practice among Objectivists…”

Interesting links. I liked “Einstein’s Boxes”. The symbols have much grace and elegance, even beauty, although a demanding beauty, especially when offset against the more coaxing and prosaic style of the text.

That said, I was not at all taken with the illustrations. Far too minimalist for my liking, and there were only two of them. I had to scroll down a fair way just to be disappointed by what were basically stick figures – children’s scribbles. Three stick rectangles, a stick curve and three sticks. Is this what modern art theory has reduced us to?

Back to the substance of my argument, I was addressing Bob’s lament that Objectivists denigrate modern science, especially physics. If it is true that some Objectivists denigrate modern science, it seeks an explanation, since one would assume that a purported radical set of ideas such as Objectivism would at least enable its adherents to remain open to developments in science, or other disciplines, however misguided or strange those developments.

My explanation for this hostility is that some tenets of Objectivism act as barriers to entertaining ideas that may well be out of the park, but could lead to fruitful speculation and from that to other theories and explanations.

I highlighted what I saw as the use of one of these tenets in a particular post, which rejected an empirical claim on the basis of an abstraction. I think this aspect of Objectivism is holding it back from applying whatever insights Rand may have to offer.

Brendan,

It has been a while since I saw those videos, but you just threw me a left curve (and my memory must be shot to pieces). Which one or ones are you talking about with "Einstein's boxes" and stick figures? I can't imagine what you are referring to.

Michael

As in your post #35.

Brendan,

LOL...

I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to the links in the section you quoted me on. (Whew! The world is rationally understandable...)

I have only skimmed a few of Dr. Norsen's articles, and that was not among the ones I did. As I was preparing that post, I got a telephone from Brazil and stayed speaking in Portuguese during a portion of it, so the title did not register in my mind. (I practically format in my sleep.) I will have to get to it.

Michael

Your mental methods are revolting. Your hand-waving will never erase the fact that you can't read minds. Especially those that are superior to yours. I made propositions that were evidently way over your head. You use the fact that you can't follow my point to claim I'm a rationalist. Instead of asking me to expand. Which really just reveals how shoddy your mind is.


Shayne

Shayne,

I read Brendan's phrase as feedback on how your words came across to him, not as mind reading or anything like that. Even the phrase "in the clear belief" sounds more to me like it is aimed as the posture of the phrase, something like "[the phrase] very clearly stating such-and-such" or "[the phrase] not leaving any room for doubt" rather than opining on the content of your mind (nor on any kind of competition).

Brendan leans to the anti-Objectivist side, but I don't sense illwill. From what I have read, he challenges well and intelligently. I find it good for my mind to answer intelligent objections. Often the problem is nothing more than clarifying meaning because jargons are different. And in other cases, I like knowing exactly where the differences lie, not just knowing generally.

I have seen a very wicked sense of humor in Brendan at times. (OK, shoot me. I like that when it is well done.) You should have seen how he got them wound up on SOLOP over a "moistie" comment. What a hoot. They thought he was dumping on Rand, but it looked to me like he was clearly dumping on hypocritical Puritanism. Several posters performed exactly on cue, too, i.e., with hypocritical Puritanism. It was strange to see that out of a crowd well known for foul language. I felt like I had stepped into some kind of is/ought warp where A was anything but A.



Michael

Brendan was not asking intelligent questions, he was making rude and presumptuous guesses. I happen to know they were presumptuous because I'm in the special position of knowing what it is that I think and how I came to think it. It is offensive to see is ridiculous guesses. The worst offense isn't the rudeness, it is the offense of seeing a human being who has so twisted his mental methods that he literally acts as if he can read minds, rather than thoughtfully asking questions and making rational inferences.

Shayne

Shayne,

My question is, aren't you doing the same thing when you state clearly that you know the contents of his mind without verifying first by questions? I like your idea of thoughtfully asking questions and making rational inferences.

This is just a suggestion, but procedure-wise, I think it is a good policy to doublecheck an intention before letting fly instead of doing so right off the bat. Also, a request to define terms is never out of place. Here is how it could go:

A: I think (something that sounds evil using words xxx and yyy).
B: I use xxx and yyy to mean aaa and bbb. Is that what you are saying?
A: No. I am saying ggg and hhh.
B: Oh. I use mmm and nnn to mean those. It sounds like we are essentially in agreement.

OR

A: I think (something that sounds evil using words xxx and yyy).
B: I use xxx and yyy to mean aaa and bbb. Is that what you are saying?
A: (Doublespeak and snarky answer.)
B: I don't understand. I think aaa and bbb are evil (maybe describe manner) and I use the terms xxx and yyy to mean that. Is this what you really mean or are you saying something else?
A: (Doublespeak and snarky answer.)
B: You are either committed to corrupt thinking or you are a troll. Neither case interests me. Goodby.

There can be all kinds variations, but this form at least diminishes the risk of misunderstanding and helps ensure that one is judging fairly.

Michael

My only assumption is that he means what he says.

He has deeper problems than mind-reading. Evidently he does not believe that the moral is the practical. This is a fundamental tenet in Objectivism, not a "rationalist formulation". It's dealt with in detail from various angles in the Objectivist literature. Yet he acts as if the onus is on me to expand on this for him. It's exactly opposite. The onus is on him, being a non-Objectivist posting in an Objectivist forum, to explain what issues he has with that tenet and why, referencing the relevant literature.


Shayne

I judge what I read. At the risk of repetition, here is your argument again: “What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism. Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises.”

You are suggesting that the poster has made a mistake in his “premises”, ie his argument. But even though you don’t consider his argument or present some counter evidence, nevertheless, you still ‘know’ that he is wrong.

So who’s presuming?

You are, obviously. See post #47.

Norsen is a relative rarity in the physics community. He believes that a theory does (or ought) to describe reality as it is. This position is called ontological or physical realism. Many physicists take a different approach to theory. They hold that a theory need not actually say what reality IS. A theory need only predict the outcome of experiments and observations under given conditions. If the predictions are empirically correct, then the theory is retained. If not, the divergence is explained in terms of instrumental error or the failure of an auxiliary conditions assumed by the theory, to hold in fact. If such an explanation is not forthcoming then the theory is falsified and must either be modified or replaced or discarded or held provisionally as a heuristic (rather than a fundamental explanation). This position is referred to as instrumentalism, insofar as the theory is regarded as a means or instrument or artifact to produce testable predictions. I tend to this position, myself. Instrumentalism does not deny the possibility of ontological realism, but it does not assume that theories are necessarily real. Clearly an ontologically realist theory that is correct would satisfy instrumentalists.

Other ontological realists: Einstein, Newton, Maxwell and most other 19-th century physicists.

Anti-realists: Ernst Mach was the best known. He believed a theory was an artifact for organizing observed facts in a neat way. Mach regard physics as being of the same sort of device as Boyle's Law, a shorthand for organizing a zillion observables. Mach did not believe atoms exist even unto his dying day. But he thought the atomic hypothesis was a neat artifact for organizing data and facts. Mach did not deny the existence of reality. But he did not believe that theories assuming things not directly observable were statements of the real nature of the world. Mach was the leading instrumentalist of his day. Actually Mach was more than an instrumentalist -- he was a positivist (even though the positivist movement did not exist in his time). Mach believed that ALL elements of theory should be reducible to directly observable phenomena and no unobservable elements should exist in a theory. Which is why he was not fond of the atomic hypothesis. No one could see atoms (in those days). Now we have Penning Traps and super-colling so we can see the light given off by the quantum transitions within individual atoms. Seeing is believing (sometimes, anyway).

Norsen is careful not to use Rand often as a reference. His references are largely to vetted articles in the literature. Unlike the Shi'ite/Wahabi Objectivists he does not characterize his colleges as dunces or intellectually corrupt (kaffirs and infidels, so to speak). When he disagrees with their findings, he disagrees in a scholarly fashion giving his reasons clearly. He is a gentleman and a scholar.

Ba'al Chatzaf