THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Philip Coates]

I think the focus on a couple one-line quotes is misplaced. People don't retain full contexts in conversation or in oral presentations with a time limit. It's possible for someone to drop a qualification and it's possible for speakers to "pop off" saying something rash or ill-considered or in anger at an opponent (for example, standing around in a q&a or a post-lecture conversation) they wouldn't *literally* adhere to ... and even do these things in the main formal oral presentation itself -- which is not written out or read from verbatim. What you "hold" people -- whether enemies or friends, whether people you have great respect for or do not -- to is **formal, written essays**, which have (hopefully) gone through several drafts and been checked for wording, implications, etc. Even certain written forms (emails between friends in wihch one blows off steam, vents rage, etc.) are less a testament to one's formal, developed position...I remember when Diana H. combed thru two years worth of Chris S's emails looking for anything emotionalist, rash, misstated or insulting.)

While I think one has to be very careful if one is acting as a spokesman or advocate for Objectivism, nonetheless you wouldn't want others to hang you for any rash statement you made or context you failed to make fully clear. I wouldn't waste time trying to track down exactly what Yaron Brook said on a particular day at a particular college or whether it was in the lecture itself or in informal conversation afterwards. I am behind in reading the Objective Standard, which has lots of long articles, and I've only glanced at Brook and Epstein's article on war and fighting terrorism. But I *would* suggest one focus on formal positions taken in essays like this in toto. Assuming one wants to be a critic of someone's application of Objectivism. And one should bend over backwards to be fair in regard to how to interpret anything unqualified or unclear.

Better yet, I think more worthwhile, more lasting Oist discussions on websites like this would be of the "positive": What exact combination of military strategy / intellectual strategy / economic strategy / diplomatic stategy / intelligence will WIN the war on terrorism?

[reason.on]

Note on Nuclear Winter:

http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27.htm

The research on nuclear winter

The prediction of nuclear winter was first published by a group headed by Carl Sagan in 1983 (TTAPS, 1983). The research group became known as 'TTAPS', after the initials of the five scientists involved. A number of other studies were published in the next few years, including major reports by The Swedish Academy of Sciences, and SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment), and the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, 1985).

Throughout this period, many attempts were made by government and military scientists to play down the possible consequences. They argued that the effects would not be nearly so severe, and began talking of a 'nuclear autumn'.

In 1990 the TTAPS group decided to publish a further paper (TTAPS, 1990), in which they reviewed in detail the later studies, and made some modifications to their 1983 results. Some of these were in the direction of more severe changes, others towards milder changes. But overall the general picture was little changed. One very notable conclusion that was reiterated from the 1983 study was that if oil refineries were the main targets, only 100 bombs would be enough to cause a nuclear winter.

Sagan and Turco (one of the 'T's) followed up their second paper by publishing a book: "The Path Where No Man Thought". This gives an account of current conclusions for the serious non-specialist reader. It gives detailed descriptions of nuclear winters of different severity according to how many weapons were used, and against what targets.

Recent history

Since 1990, as far as we can ascertain, no new research has been carried out into the possible climatic effects of a nuclear conflict. Yet since 1990, major improvements to climate system models have occurred in the international scientific effort to understand human-induced Climate Change. Meanwhile, even though the threat of a large-scale nuclear conflict between the USA and Russia has diminished, the threat of a smaller scale nuclear conflict has perhaps increased, for example due to increasing tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

So now seems an especially appropriate time to do further research on the climatic effects of a nuclear war. But worryingly no one is doing it. Steven Starr and Dr Neil Arya of the Canadian organisation, Physicians for Global Survival, have been trying to encourage former members of the TTAPS team to update their work, as well other scientists in the area. SGR has also contacted climate modellers in the UK to see if we can find anyone who might be interested. So far neither PGS nor SGR have had any luck. Is this subject just too controversial for climate scientists to risk getting involved in? Will no one stick their neck out for such an important piece of work?

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html

(very good discussion of the admix of politics and science involved in the debate about nuclear consequences)

Appendix: some critical comments about nuclear winter

Russell Seitz in his article in The National Interest quoted a number of prominent scientists as expressing critical comments about nuclear winter models and results. The use of some of these comments has been disputed by proponents of nuclear winter. In an attempt to clarify the status of the quotes, I wrote to the individuals quoted by Seitz, referred to the specific quote and asked "Is this quote correct? Does Seitz's use of the quote give an accurate reflection of your past and present views?"

Freeman Dyson, a physicist at Princeton University, was quoted by Seitz as saying about the TTAPS study, "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but I quite despair of setting the public record straight. I think I'm going to chicken out on this one: Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" Dyson in May 1987 responded "No" to each of my questions, adding "I don't believe I ever said what Russell Seitz said I said, but I can't prove it."[151]

Richard Feynman, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, was quoted as saying about TTAPS, "You know, I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about". Feynman on 1 July 1987 replied to me, "Regarding the quote, I'm sorry, but I really don't remember if it's exactly accurate or not."

Jonathan Katz, a physicist at Washington University in St Louis, was quoted as saying about nuclear winter, after a journalist's caution against four-letter words, "'Humbug' is six." Katz on 22 January 1988 wrote to me that Seitz's quotations attributed to him are correct.

Kosta Tsipis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to Seitz, quoted a Soviet scientist as saying "You guys are fools. You can't use mathematical models like these to model perturbed states of the atmosphere. You're playing with toys." TTAPS in their November 1986 letter to the Wall Street Journal said "A negative comment on mathematical modeling allegedly uttered by a 'Soviet scientist' (indisputably V. V. Aleksandrov of the Moscow-based Climate Modeling Center, the only Soviet at the April 1983 Cambridge review meeting referred to by Seitz), and prominently displayed in a box by the WSJ, was never made. The transcript of the meeting shows no such remark, and Kosta Tsipis of MIT, whom Seitz claims as his source, flatly denies the whole thing."

Tsipis in a memo of 5 January 1987, entitled 'Regarding: Seitz vs. Sagan', gives his account: "When Russell Seitz came to talk to me about Nuclear Winter, I recalled that in the AAAS Meeting (in Cambridge Mass.), a Russian scientist got up and said that we cannot use climate models as if the nuclear war itself would not disturb the atmosphere. The discussion at that point had evolved around the 1-D [one-dimensional] model. Mr. Seitz mentioned this in his Wall Street Journal article, but in a context that implied that the Soviet scientist was referring to all 3-D models, quite generally. Subsequently, I had a telephone call from Carl Sagan who wanted to know what I had said to Seitz. During our conversation, two things became clear: a) that Seitz had confused my statement to mean that it referred to a 3-D model; B) that it would be very difficult to explain to the readers of the W.S.J. the distinction. For this latter reason, we agreed that Carl should simplify his response by saying that I deny discussing the 3-D model with Seitz. In Carl's letter-response in the W.S.J., this statement was further simplified."

Seitz later wrote to me (30 December 1987) saying that Tsipis' original remarks were recorded[152], that the clear context was 1-D models, and that he is not aware of any confusion between 1-D and 3-D models in the text of his Wall Street Journal article.

Victor Weisskopf, a physicist at MIT, was quoted by Seitz as saying in early 1984, "Ah! Nuclear winter! The science is terrible, but -- perhaps the psychology is good." TTAPS in their November 1986 letter to the Wall Street Journal comment about Seitz that "derogatory quotes are attributed to individuals who forcefully deny them (e.g., Victor Weisskopf)." Weisskopf wrote to me on 10 June 1987 about the quoted comment, "I do not remember having made such a remark. I may have said the science is unreliable, but the psychology is good. I do believe that nuclear winter is not yet proved, but is made rather plausible and therefore the word unreliable is the right characterization. This was my view at the time of the interview and is at present "

One other scientist quoted by Seitz in the same section of his paper, Michael McElroy of Harvard University, did not respond to my letter.

There are at least two lessons to be learned from this material. First, in a scientific area which has important political implications, even off-the-cuff comments can take on a great significance. In this case, the comments are by prominent scientists who are not active researchers in the field in question. Both Seitz and, in response, TTAPS treat the quotes as significant. In disputes over science in public arenas, the credentials of scientists (such as being a Nobel Prize winner) are a key resource in making claims and counterclaims.

Second, the presentation and interpretation of the comments by Seitz and TTAPS, in simplifying the comments or the context in which they were made, tend to reflect the respective cases they are trying to make. Just as the construction and results of mathematical models can reflect the presuppositions of scientists, so can the meaning and significance of 'mere quotes'.

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Better yet, I think more worthwhile, more lasting Oist discussions on websites like this would be of the "positive": What exact combination of military strategy / intellectual strategy / economic strategy / diplomatic stategy / intelligence will WIN the war on terrorism?

Phil,

That's easy. Let the military deal with force and we, as intellectuals, start fighting the ideas, like I have been saying all along. We don't need to convince ourselves. We need to convince the overwhelming majority of Muslims that it is OK to distance themselves from fundamentalists and denounce them. That means injecting individual rights and reason in their thinking.

I personally have started. Please see my essay, Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues. Would you like to join me in my efforts? There's a hell of a lot of work to do.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Esquire Valliant steps up to the microphone, whipping out some strange Kung-Fu:

Let me guess...Even without hearing the original comments, it is obvious that this "controversy" is a question of context-dropping by Ms. Branden and/or her friend.

Way to lay pipe, Svengali! Soon, he will achieve Total Omniscience<tm>. :purple: Context, schmontext. I would love to see exactly how much couching one could do to make those statements anything other than what they are.

But we've been over that, and there be bigger fish to fry as far as quotes and writings go, which have been provided here....

Then he coughs up this hairball :sick: :

As I say -- without having heard the comments in their full context -- but knowing Ms. B.'s approach as well as I do -- this is very likely just another incarnation of our bias-twisted historian's psycho-epistemology.

Apparently, he is now also an expert on Barbara's, er, "approach." I'm thinking that means he once read Principles of Efficient Thinking? Rightio.

The twisted-sister-pscyho-epiphenepherin (sp?) line I'm not going to touch. It's too special.

rde

Today's special word is "Douchebag."

Edited October 21, 2006 by Rich Engle

[reason.on]

Ross: Ellen's right, and more so: all that stuff you said about radiation was wrong too. We could drop a bunch of nukes and it would have little consequence except for what would be destroyed. All that stuff they taught us in high school about how using nukes would poison everything is all nonsense.

I'm certainly no expert in the environmental effects of nuclear weapons, however, I'd certainly like to see some evidence, or at least argumentation, before I resign what I consider to be rational fears of broad unintended consequences. I tend to think that the debate isn't closed, and that the use of modern nuclear weapons wouldn't be a neat, clean and strictly localized phenomenon.

RCR

[Rich Engle]

Hey, well who cares if there's a nuclear winter or not? There will be plenty to go around.

Let's review, shall we? A much weaker example, but look at (after, not during meals) some material regarding post- Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you scroll down, you get to the swanky color shots of people who have been melted and stuff:

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

:sick:

So, yeah!! It'll be clean, quick, and surgical! Right on!

rde

My wife, yes; my dog, maybe; my gun, NEVER!

[sjw]

I'm certainly no expert in the environmental effects of nuclear weapons, however, I'd certainly like to see some evidence, or at least argumentation, before I resign what I consider to be rational fears of broad unintended consequences. I tend to think that the debate isn't closed, and that the use of modern nuclear weapons wouldn't be a neat, clean and strictly localized phenomenon.

It's rational to wonder, but it's conceding to the arbitrary (i.e., it's irrational) to accept the fear-mongering on that basis, which is what you did in your first post. If you don't know, you don't know, and that's it.

Shayne

[reason.on]

As I say -- without having heard the comments in their full context -- but knowing Ms. B.'s approach as well as I do -- this is very likely just another incarnation of our bias-twisted historian's psycho-epistemology.

Apparently, he is now also an expert on Barbara's, er, "approach." I'm thinking that means he once read Principles of Efficient Thinking? Rightio.

Further, isn't it funny how BB can't be trusted in any way, is intellecually corrupt, etc, and yet Svengali still finds it useful to utilize her ideas (psycho-epistemology).

RCR

[reason.on]

I'm certainly no expert in the environmental effects of nuclear weapons, however, I'd certainly like to see some evidence, or at least argumentation, before I resign what I consider to be rational fears of broad unintended consequences. I tend to think that the debate isn't closed, and that the use of modern nuclear weapons wouldn't be a neat, clean and strictly localized phenomenon.

It's rational to wonder, but it's conceding to the arbitrary (i.e., it's irrational) to accept the fear-mongering on that basis, which is what you did in your first post. If you don't know, you don't know, and that's it.

Of course, but I'm sure you'll recognize the same applies to you. I've not yet seen any evidence or even arguement with regard to what you think you know. On this note, I'm respectfully not interested in mere assertions.

RCR

[sjw]

It's rational to wonder, but it's conceding to the arbitrary (i.e., it's irrational) to accept the fear-mongering on that basis, which is what you did in your first post. If you don't know, you don't know, and that's it.

Of course, but I'm sure you'll recognize the same applies to you.

The principle does, but unlike you I didn't violate it. Your bringing it up just demonstrates that you're confused.

I've not yet seen any evidence or even arguement with regard to what you think you know. On this note, I'm respectfully not interested in mere assertions.

There's nothing wrong with mere assertions, what's wrong is irresponsible assertions, empty statements made in ignorance without real knowledge behind them, pretending to know what one is talking about while not admitting your own ignorance to yourself or others, i.e., faking reality. You made mere assertions and then later said you didn't have a clue about them. You've already proven yourself to be behaving irresponsibly. You now compound the irresponsibility by implying that it's my duty to educate you. Which just goes to show that you've not learned anything.

Shayne

[reason.on]

Further notes on the effects of nuclear weapons:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects17.shtml

Radioactive Fallout

Fallout is the radioactive particles that fall to earth as a result of a nuclear explosion. It consists of weapon debris, fission products, and, in the case of a ground burst, radiated soil. Fallout particles vary in size from thousandths of a millimeter to several millimeters. Much of this material falls directly back down close to ground zero within several minutes after the explosion, but some travels high into the atmosphere. This material will be dispersed over the earth during the following hours, days (and) months. Fallout is defined as one of two types: early fallout, within the first 24 hours after an explosion, or delayed fallout, which occurs days or years later.

Most of the radiation hazard from nuclear bursts comes from short-lived radionuclides external to the body; these are generally confined to the locality downwind of the weapon burst point. This radiation hazard comes from radioactive fission fragments with half-lives of seconds to a few months, and from soil and other materials in the vicinity of the burst made radioactive by the intense neutron flux.

Most of the particles decay rapidly. Even so, beyond the blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas (hot spots) the survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium 90 or cesium 137. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the attack.

Predictions of the amount and levels of the radioactive fallout are difficult because of several factors. These include; the yield and design of the weapon, the height of the explosion, the nature of the surface beneath the point of burst, and the meteorological conditions, such as wind direction and speed.

An air burst can produce minimal fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. On the other hand, a nuclear explosion occurring at or near the earth's surface can result in severe contamination by the radioactive fallout.

Fallout Particles

Many fallout particles are especially hazardous biologically. Some of the principal radioactive elements are as follows:

Strontium 90 is very long-lived with a half-life of 28 years. It is chemically similar to calcium, causing it to accumulate in growing bones. This radiation can cause tumors, leukemia, and other blood abnormalities.

Iodine 131 has a half-life of 8.1 days. Ingestion of it concentrates in the thyroid gland. The radiation can destroy all or part of the thyroid. Taking potassium iodide can reduce the effects.

The amount of tritium released varies by bomb design. It has a half-life of 12.3 years and can be easily ingested, since it can replace a hydrogen in water. The beta radiation can cause lung cancer.

Cesium 137 has a half-life of 30 years. It does not present as large a biological threat as Strontium 90. It behaves similar to potassium, and will distribute fairly uniformly thoughout the body. This can contribute to gonadal irradiation and genetic damage.

When a plutonium weapon is exploded, not all of the plutonium is fissioned. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,400 years. Ingestion of as little as 1 microgram of plutonium, a barely visible speck, is a serious health hazard causing the formation of bone and lung tumors.

The Fallout Pattern

The details of the actual fallout pattern depend on wind speed and direction and on the terrain. The fallout will contain about 60 percent of the total radioactivity. The largest particles will fall within a short distance of ground zero. Smaller particles will require many hours to return to earth and may be carried hundreds of miles. This means that a surface burst can produce serious contamination far from the point of detonation.

This map shows the total dose contours from early fallout from a surface burst of a 1-megaton fission yield.

From the 15-megaton thermonuclear device tested at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954 - the BRAVO shot of Operation CASTLE - the fallout caused substantial contamination over an area of more than 7,000 square miles. The contaminated region was roughly cigar-shaped and extended more than 20 miles upwind and over 350 miles downwind.

Fallout can also enter into the stratosphere. In this stable region, radioactive particles can remain from 1 to 3 years before returning to the surface.

Nuclear Winter

In 1983, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan (referred to as TTAPS) published a paper entitled "Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War" which is the foundation on which the nuclear winter theory is based on.

Theory states that nuclear explosions will set off firestorms over many cities and forests within range. Great plumes of smoke, soot, and dust would be sent aloft from these fires, lifted by their own heating to high altitudes where they could drift for weeks before dropping back or being washed out of the atmosphere onto the ground. Several hundred million tons of this smoke and soot would be shepherded by strong west-to-east winds until they would form a uniform belt of particles encircling the Northern Hemisphere.

These thick black clouds could block out all but a fraction of the sun's light for a period as long as several weeks. The conditions of semidarkness, killing frosts, and subfreezing temperatures, combined with high doses of radiation from nuclear fallout, would interrupt plant photosynthesis and could thus destroy much of the Earth's vegetation and animal life. The extreme cold, high radiation levels, and the widespread destruction of industrial, medical, and transportation infrastructures along with food supplies and crops would trigger a massive death toll from starvation, exposure, and disease.

It is not certain that a nuclear war would produce a nuclear winter effect. However, it remains a possibility and the TTAPS study concluded: "...the possibility of the extinction of Homo Sapiens cannot be excluded."

More research:

Radiation Effects Research Foundation

Nuclear Pathways

Effects of Nuclear Explosions

BRAVO (Bikini atoll)

RCR

[Rich Engle]

I suppose sticking around the thread rather than having a little girly slap-fight is out of the question?

rde

Once again, we recommend naked Greco-Roman wrestling for

all dispute resolutions.

[reason.on]

It's rational to wonder, but it's conceding to the arbitrary (i.e., it's irrational) to accept the fear-mongering on that basis, which is what you did in your first post. If you don't know, you don't know, and that's it.

Of course, but I'm sure you'll recognize the same applies to you.

The principle does, but unlike you I didn't violate it. Your bringing it up just demonstrates that you're confused.

I've not yet seen any evidence or even arguement with regard to what you think you know. On this note, I'm respectfully not interested in mere assertions.

There's nothing wrong with mere assertions...

Yawn.

My, my; I'm sure that astute readers will note that I didn't say anything about the "wrongness" of making assertions, what I wrote was that I am not interested...and I'm still not.

RCR

[sjw]

Yawn.

My, my; I'm sure that astute readers will note that I didn't say anything about the "wrongness" of making assertions, what I wrote was that I am not interested...and I'm still not.

Oh, well that's good to know. Thanks for the information. I'll make sure to keep your wishes in mind when I write my posts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I'm actually more interested in this subject of consequences of nuclear blasts than who said what and when. Christian is a good guy (like you are). He looked up and provided some damn interesting stuff. You wrote to him:

We could drop a bunch of nukes and it would have little consequence except for what would be destroyed. All that stuff they taught us in high school about how using nukes would poison everything is all nonsense.

Like I said, I am very interested in this subject. It is not one I covered much in my translations in Brazil (where I received a second education doing about 35,000 pages). Since you made this statement, I know you have a basis for it. I would like to read some information from this side of the issue. So could you please provide some indications of where to look?

Michael

[sjw]

blah blah blah

Completely useless information. For one thing, it makes no mention of normal background radiation, necessary in order to evaluate the difference between the radiation a nuke would cause and what we get already. E.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

"Natural background radiation comes from two primary sources: cosmic radiation and terrestrial sources. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 mSv per year [1] (pdf). This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth. This is far greater than human-caused background radiation exposure, which in the year 2000 amounted to an average of about 0.01 mSv per year from historical nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and nuclear industry operation combined [1], and is greater than the average exposure from medical tests, which ranges from 0.04 to 1 mSv per year."

Edited October 21, 2006 by sjw

[Mikee]

It's also useful to have some idea of what effect various dosages of radiation actually have:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hormesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

Edited October 21, 2006 by Mikee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a question. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia Background radiation article:

Frequent above-ground nuclear explosions between the 1940s and 1960s scattered a substantial amount of radioactive contamination. Some of this contamination is local, rendering the immediate surroundings highly radioactive, while some of it is carried longer distances as nuclear fallout; some of this material is dispersed worldwide.

Since a nuclear blast renders the immediate surroundings highly radioactive and nuclear fallout is carried longer distances, could this possibly impact and contaminate oil? Would there be a danger range where oil could be produced (extracted), but would be contaminated with residual radioactivity?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

It might not be that bad an idea to look at data collected from the Chernobyl incident. It's current-area, substantial, and a lot of time has passed to study, well...fallout.

[sjw]

I'm actually more interested in this subject of consequences of nuclear blasts than who said what and when. Christian is a good guy (like you are). He looked up and provided some damn interesting stuff.

I think one of the worst evils is to feign knowledge, whether explicitly in talk or implicitly in action. All of the evils of the world can be traced to people who characteristically do this. All of the good can be traced to people who characteristically take due care before pronouncing in thoughts, words, and deeds their certainty about some matter. Just look at the issue at hand. Do you think ARI can back up their raving with logic an arguments? Absolutely not. They're feigning knowledge. (On this count I think Peikoff did Objectivism a great disservice when he talked about "context" being an excuse for making false statements).

Shayne

PS: Google's a great tool for examining this radiation issue for oneself. Factors to consider: type of bomb, intensity and duration of radiation at a given radius, known long-term effects of radiation in terms of liklihood, comparison with natural occurances such as volcano eruptions.

[reason.on]

A quick note of clarification: there is, of course, nothing wrong at all in making assertions, but in the context of a meaningful debate one is quite obliged to make a case, by presenting arguments, evidence etc--making mere assertions, much without any evidence or argument, isn't debate, but something else entirely...eschewing the issue by denying this and recouching the issue in terms of "educating" one's debate opponent is to simply drop the context of debate.

What I am interested in here is debate, not the trading of proclimations. I hope the evidence I have thus far provide here makes this abundantly clear.

The issue at hand--that is being debated--is whether or not the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East could, with a reasonable probability, cause long-term and disparate radiological damage beyond the intended "target", including people in innocent neighboring nations, and oil fields, thus causing potentially significant global turmoil, blowback, and chaos. The answer to this question, and other similar questions, as I've have framed the issue, ought to inform any decision to actually use nuclear weapons in the region.

Lest anyone besides Shayne be confused about my position, I'll state for the record, I am quite open to any evidence or argument that demonstrates that the effects of modern nuclear weapons would be strictly localized to their intended "target", in both time and space, and that all of the research and evidence I have presented with regard to the long-term poisonous radiological effects of nuclear fall-out are all wrong, however, I am not personally interested in mere assertions to the contrary.

RCR

[reason.on]

Yawn.

My, my; I'm sure that astute readers will note that I didn't say anything about the "wrongness" of making assertions, what I wrote was that I am not interested...and I'm still not.

Oh, well that's good to know. Thanks for the information. I'll make sure to keep your wishes in mind when I write my posts.

My pleasure Shayne; you should know that I will most assuredly do the same...

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I still hold that you and Christian are both good guys.

On the issue of feigning knowledge, I not only agree, I got half-way through composing a song in Brazil about a father singing to his newborn son and promising to never teach him what he himself doesn't know. I might try to do something with this in English later as the theme is extremely important. I have seen a lot of people not only feign knowledge, they teach what they don't know and start making it up when they get stuck.

There is a danger in Objectivism with this. It is called "thinking in principles." There is nothing wrong and a lot right with thinking in principles, but not if that is the only thinking a person does. I have seen a lot of really stupid statements made (usually aping Rand) by people who introspect a little, arrive as the glimmerings of a principle and then go around condemning anything and everything that is not in alignment with that principle. They make an enormous blend/package/glop out of cognitive and normative abstractions - to the point of eliminating the cognitive altogether. After all, it takes effort to study something and no effort to judge on whim.

Like you, I find the ARI position to be based on feigned knowledge (mixed with some actual knowledge). I also see a misapplication of "thinking in principles," using some principles to actually cancel others and even to avoid looking at reality.

Michael

[reason.on]

I also want to make perfectly clear that I have not "feigned knowledge" with respect to this issue at all. What I have done is present what I consider to be probable scenarios in the wake of a nuclear attack in the Middle East, under the umbrella proposition that a nuclear attack in the Middle East would not be localized in time and space to the intended "target", I have also admitted the limits and general boundaries of my knowledge (by admitting that I am not an expert), and further presented the information, evidence etc, that has generally informed my assessment of the effects of nuclear weapons.

RCR

[Barbara Branden]

Phil, your objection to taking Brook's comments seriously reminds me of Mel Gibson's defense of his anti-Semitic ravings. He said that since he was drunk at the time, it's not fair to think that he believed what he said. But that's nonsense. Whether one is drunk -- or is speaking off-the cuff or in haste-- one doesn't say the opposite of what one believes. If you've had a drink or two, do you say "Objectivism is for morons" -- or "Rand was completely wrong?" And I don't believe Brook has ever been accused of saying, off-the-cuff or on, spontaneously or with thoughtful care, "It's wrong to kill people because of their ideas."

Barbara