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

[BaalChatzaf]

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 It is the modern scientist who has the correct ontology, not a layman like Peikoff who clings to his outdated Newtonian ontology.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are no scientists are lagging hopelessly behind with their ontological ideas, they just don't understand that these are outdated, and therefore they become the laughing stock of modern scientists, no matter how much they are babbling about the "corruption of modern science".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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is good to know that in the land of the blind there are at least two people who can see.

All beginnings are hard. Newton, who invented the sort of mathematically based physics we take for granted was limited by two factors (as all scientists are): his imagination and the technology that provides the imagination with facts. Newton got past Aristotle's flaws because he grasped -inertia-. With this in hand, he was able to understand that force manifests itself by change in the motion (i.e. the momentum) of a body. If Newton had done no more than this he would already be a Giant. From Newton we learn that the mark of a net force is acceleration or change of momentum and that momentum is conserved in collisions (that is the content of Newton's third law). Newton's additional contribution to mechanics, the law of gravitation, was an extra treat. It enabled physicists and astronomers to -explain- the motion of the Lights in the Sky by principle that were equally applicable to earthly motions. In short, the Moon is -falling- around the earth, just has fruit falls from trees.

Newton had only the outlines of an atomic theory. He did conceive of matter consisting of small parts but he had no idea of how this small things interacted. He simply did not possess the technology nor could he invent in his lifetime the technology for dealing with the very small.

Had Newton access to the atomic structure of matter and the interaction of matter and energy he would not have been a "Newtonian".

In addition, Newton carried the burden of a concept of time and space which every other thinking man carried. He conceived of space and time as being absolute. It was not until Maxwell's field based theory of electrodynamic forces emerged that the flaw in this concept became visible. Einstein rejected absolute time and space because the Lorentz Force law for electrical and magnetic fields assumed an asymmetry not inherent in the phenomena (Einstein's very words in the first two paragraphs of his famous 1905 paper on electrodynamics). Einstein had to rethink the nature of space and time to rid the theory of this unnecessary asymmetry. Before the many can see something, one must see it. Einstein was the first to recognize that the concept of absolute time and space lead to asymmetry in the theory that had nothing to do with the phenomena observed. Therefore the concept of space and time must be flawed.

So Newton's theory had a crack in it independent of subatomic processes. He got space and time wrong, as did everyone else until Einstein straightened out the matter.

The problems that led to difficulties in understanding radiation were in addition to and independent of having the wrong idea of space and time. It was Max Planck who realized that radiation emitted by bodies had to be quantized. Getting to this place was an agony for Planck, who was by nature a conservative man. Yet he had to scrap the intuitively obvious idea of continuous radiation flow of energy from hot bodies to finally solve the problem of Black Body radiation. This was the start of a revolution that lead to a totally different picture of reality. Planck was able to lift the veil just enough so that others could get a glimpse of a world unlike that comprehended by their normal intuitions.

If Newton could have seen what Planck saw he immediately would have grasped the significance. Given the facts, Newton would not be a Newtonian.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

Thank you for this lucid explanation of the psycho-epistemology of great scientific discovery and advancement.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Dragonfly,

(sigh)

Without defending Peikoff, if you want to talk about laughing-stocks, you ought to see what politicians think of scientists, even good scientists. Witness this whole global warming issue for a clue.

Philosophy, especially ethics, has been the ONLY thing in man's history capable of harnessing politicians, not science. On the contrary, science has given the thugs bigger and better and more lethal weapons with which to destroy other humans and the earth in general.

(Bob - Good last post.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A philosopher injected into science is just as pitiful as a scientist injected into philosophy; each does it all the time. Or (edit), philosophy injected into science ....

--Brant

Edited November 29, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

Who is talking about politicians? Not me. I'm talking about those philosophers who think they have anything meaningful to say about science without knowing anything about it. If they are so good in harnessing politicians, by all means let them do it, then they might do at least something useful. But that is no reason to excuse their behavior in other fields.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

You harness politicians with ethics. When scientists call philosophers boneheads and claim that ethics are subjective (based on personal feelings only), they give politicians all the sanction they need to make a mess of this world.

I think it is wise to work on a mentality of aligning philosophy and science, not embrace one spitting at the other.

But then again, one aspect is completely understandable. Politicians hand out grants to scientists and philosophers do not...

Michael

[Dragonfly]

You harness politicians with ethics. When scientists call philosophers boneheads and claim that ethics are subjective (based on personal feelings only), they give politicians all the sanction they need to make a mess of this world.

I never said that all philosophers are boneheads, but some of them certainly are. What politicians do or not do is no reason to hide the truth, namely that ethics is subjective. And come to think of it, perhaps it's better that politicians don't listen to someone like Peikoff. Do you think that his fanatical "nuke them all" attitude really would improve things in the world? Is that the benevolent influence of (Objectivist) philosophers you're suggesting?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

If ethics is subjective, why not listen to Peikoff for ethical decisions? It's only opinion, right? Or do you have any objective reasons why "nuke 'em all" is a bad idea?

Subjective ethics? Thanks, but no thanks. I need rational reasons for using bombs. I'll keep my ethics objective.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

If ethics is subjective, why not listen to Peikoff for ethical decisions? It's only opinion, right? Or do you have any objective reasons why "nuke 'em all" is a bad idea?

I may have objective reasons to think it is a bad idea, but these have nothing to do with philosophy. And why on earth should I listen to Peikoff for ethical decisions? If you are an Objectivist you are the one who should follow his ethical decisions. After all he is the official spokesman for Objectivism, and he claims that his decisions are based on objective ethics. As that is what you want, why don't you follow Peikoff's example? He must be right!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Please do not confuse the person with the principle.

I'll still take my ethics objectively. Mine are based on facts.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Well, if Peikoff's ethics are objective, they are not dependent on his person. So if you disagree with him, that means either that the Objectivist claim of objective ethics is false or that your ethics is not objective, or both.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, if Peikoff's ethics are objective, they are not dependent on his person. So if you disagree with him, that means either that the Objectivist claim of objective ethics is false or that your ethics is not objective, or both.

Dragonfly,

Not at all. It could also mean that Peikoff's ethics are not objective when applied to certain issues. And that is my position.

Please do not confuse the person with the principle.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Then the Objectivist claim of objective ethics is false. If even Peikoff can't get it right, and he is the authority in the field of Objectivism, no Objectivist can claim to have the objective solution.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

That's one hell of a premise: if Peikoff can be nonobjective, then Objectivist ethics are not objective. I can't even begin to formulate a syllogism with that.

And who says Peikoff is the authority on Objectivism, anyway? On OL, I have only heard you say that so far. For the record, AYN RAND is the authority on Objectivism. And she was nonobjective at times.

That still does not mean that ethics are subjective. In my world (and that of Objectivists in general), ethics are derived from knowable facts.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Objectivist ethics, by Leonard Peikoff: Vote Democratic or you use Objectivism rationalistically.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

And who says Peikoff is the authority on Objectivism, anyway? On OL, I have only heard you say that so far. For the record, AYN RAND is the authority on Objectivism. And she was nonobjective at times.

I'm of course talking about living persons. Peikoff has written what amounts to the standard presentation of Objectivism. All Objectivists praise him to the sky for his lectures on Objectivism. He is considered to be the intellectual heir of Rand and to the outside world he is Mr. Objectivism. If he can't get right the theory on which he is the foremost authority, how objective is that theory then? What is the criterion of being right?

That still does not mean that ethics are subjective. In my world (and that of Objectivists in general), ethics are derived from knowable facts.

"Deriving" something from facts is no guarantee for objectivity. The fact that different Objectivists have different ethics shows that these are subjective, otherwise everyone would arrive at the same conclusions. A mathematical proof is objective: every mathematician will agree that it is correct. Not so with ethics, Objectivist or otherwise.

[Barbara Branden]

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.

Peter, I regret that I don't have a record of where and when Peikoff made this claim. The reason I don't is that the claim was made so many times -- by Peikoff and by other ARI people -- that there seemed no need to keep a record, since the claim would never be denied. I have a suspicion that lately, because so many people have denied that Rand ever termed Peikoff her "intellectual heir," the claim has been downplayed, even removed from some of the records -- as ARI is wont to do with material it wishes to sanitize.

With regard to the book jacket you mentioned, if it's the jacket of one of Peikoff's books, or of a book he edited or approved, he would have had full power to insist that no such statement be made on the jacket.

Barbara

[Jonathan]

Peter, I regret that I don't have a record of where and when Peikoff made this claim. The reason I don't is that the claim was made so many times -- by Peikoff and by other ARI people -- that there seemed no need to keep a record, since the claim would never be denied. I have a suspicion that lately, because so many people have denied that Rand ever termed Peikoff her "intellectual heir," the claim has been downplayed, even removed from some of the records -- as ARI is wont to do with material it wishes to sanitize.

I've seen many things where PeeQuaff referred to himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," but a quick Google search didn't reveal anything. I did, however, find this blog entry in which Diana Hsieh commented on the "intellectual heir" issue back before she caught the ObjectiFever:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2003_04_27_weekly.html

It also includes Hsieh's comments on Peikoff's anti-Objectivist notions of lying and other things. Obviously Hsieh's views on Peikoff have probably long been altered by the Fever.

J

[Chris Grieb]

I got my copy of OPAR out. On the title page the following two sentences occur. "Leonard Peikoff is universally recognized as the preeminent Rand scholar writing today. He worked closely with Ayn Rand for thirty years and was designated by her as heir to her estate."

No intellectual heir.

In a statement in the preface to OPAR Peikoff says the following "To be objective, I Identify the status of my work as follows: this book is the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy-as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir."

Peikoff does use intellectual heir here either.

[Newberry]

"The most powerful reason that there was silence is the most obvious of all: people, virtually all intelligent readers, were still digesting it. The 'top mind' is often very legitimately a slow-moving, cautious one, that takes its time to digest and integrate things, especially something life-changing. Hundreds and hundreds of questions arise."

Phil,

You are funny.

The simple reason for rejection is that when you are first by a long shot, it takes others some time before they can realize it. It would have been better for Rand to have psychologically embraced the idea that she was leader, and, perhaps, that she would not have any peers for some time to come if in her life time. The greater the mind the fewer the colleagues.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I've seen many things where PeeQuaff referred to himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," but a quick Google search didn't reveal anything. I did, however, find this blog entry in which Diana Hsieh commented on the "intellectual heir" issue back before she caught the ObjectiFever:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2003_04_27_weekly.html

It also includes Hsieh's comments on Peikoff's anti-Objectivist notions of lying and other things. Obviously Hsieh's views on Peikoff have probably long been altered by the Fever.

Thanks for posting this. It demonstrates the arbitrariness of any position Diana takes on any person associated with Objectivism.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Dragonfly,

That's one hell of a premise: if Peikoff can be nonobjective, then Objectivist ethics are not objective. I can't even begin to formulate a syllogism with that.

And who says Peikoff is the authority on Objectivism, anyway? On OL, I have only heard you say that so far. For the record, AYN RAND is the authority on Objectivism. And she was nonobjective at times.

That still does not mean that ethics are subjective. In my world (and that of Objectivists in general), ethics are derived from knowable facts.

Michael

Ethical (or Moral) systems are -constrained- by physical facts, but not -determined- by physical facts. There are several ethical systems in use which do not collide with natural laws and which can be practiced without leading to the extinction of those who practice them. Both a capitalist system with grounded on the ethics of private ownership of property and rights to life and liberty can survive. A moderate socialist system which permits some private ownership can also survive. For example, the Kibbutz System in Israel. It has passed away (mostly) because people have chosen the capitalist path, but the system could be sustained if people chose to sustain it. In short, the Kibbutz system is feasible and possible, if not preferable.

Ethical systems that demand the physically impossible cannot be practiced, so they can be dismissed as nonsense. And ethical system that demanded that its adherents (human beings) fly by waving their arms is doomed from the git go. Humans cannot fly by waving their arms.

Ethical systems which, if practiced, lead to the death, destruction or extinction of those who practice them are not around long enough to be taken seriously. For example the Shakers, a religious movement, forbade sexual congress. As a result the movement could only be sustained by people who come into it from the outside. When this influx ceased the movement died out. I think the last Shaker, an old lady, died back in the 1950s and that was the end of that.

If more than one ethical system can be practices in consistency with physical law and does not lead to the extinction of its followers, then ethics cannot be uniquely derived from the facts (i.e. actual states of reality).

The best one can do is check out a system of ethics in several respects:

1. Is it logically consistent.

2. Is it consistent with physical laws, particularly biological laws.

3. Is the system consistent with human biological nature.

4. Can the system be generalized: i.e. can one apply its principles to all who live in the social group that practices the system.

If an ethical system does not pass all these tests then it cannot survive or be implemented for very long. These criteria will not determine an ethical system uniquely.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am surprised that nobody remembered this: Fact and Value by Leonard Peikoff. From the essay (my emphasis):

Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All Objectivists praise him to the sky for his lectures on Objectivism.

Dragonfly,

ALL Objectivists? Boy are you getting sloppy. And even among renegade Objectivists who praise this lecture or that, their praise is not reserved for ALL Peikoff's lectures. Even some staunch ARI members have questioned parts of the DIM Hypothises, for example.

He is considered to be the intellectual heir of Rand...

By whom? You? A handful of supporters? Come on.

If he can't get right the theory on which he is the foremost authority, how objective is that theory then? What is the criterion of being right?

Try alignment with facts, i.e., reality. That's a start.

I will not answer your other comment about ethics being subjective as it is based on dogmatic values I do not hold.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I am surprised that nobody remembered this: Fact and Value by Leonard Peikoff. From the essay (my emphasis):

Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir.

C'mon, Michael, he didn't use all those fionts. I wonder if that was in Rand's will? Maybe it was like Napoleon crowning himself. While Ayn Rand was sometimes in over her head, sometimes she knew better than to get that way. I once saw her take notes on 3x5 cards at a lecture on law by Henry Mark Holzer (who was unable to lucidly distinguish between libel and slander). One thing we do know: being an heir of any sort is arbitrary no matter who does the heiring. She could have designated Mickey Mouse. The true intellectual heirs of Ayn Rand stand on her shoulders, among other shoulders. They don't live under the Ayn Rand thumb as Peikoff did while she was alive and since her death. He did a good thing with OPAR by writing it: it provides a locus for focus on Objectivism more or less as Ayn Rand thought it. By comparing various texts scholars can pretty much figure it out. I admit I am not that kind of Objectivist; I refuse to study a catechism and I am not a scholar. This wasn't always true, so I know more than I really need to. BTW, by reading this sort of thing again I'm really tempted to once again refer to myself as an Objectivist. But sticking it to Peikoff is not enough motivation. Maybe if I got drunk ...

--Brant