Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?

[Ellen Stuttle]

btw - I just had an evil thought. Is it possible that Judd Weiss is related to Fred Weiss? That he's the black sheep of the family, so to speak? If so, that would give an easy explanation for his acceptance by high-level fundies after he does something that would normally result in excommunication.

Michael

I don't think they're related. Weiss is a fairly common Jewish last name.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On AWG, I just saw an article that might be pointing the one-world control folks in a different direction. (Too lazy to look for it right now, but this idea should be all over the place before too long.)

There is a theory going around that even a small nuclear war will make the planet uninhabitable for AWG reasons.

I see a big-ass anti-nuke campaign coming with a possible big-ass money scheme behind it (not carbon credits, but something equally creative and useless but expensive.)

I guess they just gotta take over the world to save us all, right?

Michael

[william.scherk]

Quick question: Have there ever been any Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters/proponents who have identified the results which would disprove their theories? I have yet to hear of any AGWers who specifically state which conditions would falsify their theories. In fact, whenever any merely logically implied conditions of disproof are found to exist, the goal posts are always then moved, even to the extent of renaming the theory itself to erase the obvious falseness of the previous name. (It makes you wonder if "Climate Change" would give way to "Climate Smothering Stagnation/Sameness" if all evidence of change disappeared).

J

I am an AGWer, I suppose. To list out results which would disprove 'their theories' it's necessary to examine the building blocks of what we might call CO2-warming theory. From my reading over the years and especially reading of The Discovery of Global Warming by Weart, there have been many steps and lines of inquiry converging on the modern consensus. Individual achievements are many but seldom noted: here's a timeline from Weart's online version of the book. I recommend the book highly.

Results or findings contrary to a modern AGW theory would then be expected at any stage along the timeline, from Tyndal to Arrhenius to Revelle to Keeling and to more recent panoptic science.

For example, several lines of evidence converge to separately support that atmospheric CO2 is vital to Earth's relative warmth, and those lines were supported by more fundamental findings on exact mechanisms. Each component that has withstood falsification contributed to the understanding of long-term climate characteristics and changes.

For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. Hope you can give a look to the Weart timeline at least to see the many scientific inquiries contributing to current climate models (and warnings of consequences of CO2 rise).

More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework!

Hope that makes sense.

-- to your other point, can you elaborate on goal-post shifting that annoyed you?

_______________________________

An excerpt from an Amazon review of Weart's book:

Weart details the steps in the discovery of global warming as a concept, including the various transformations that climate theory went through on its way towards adequately explaining what has happened in the past and reliably predicting the general shape of things to come. He explains the science well for the beginner (that is to say, not too deeply) and covers many bases - including solar, atmospheric, oceanic and biomass inputs that shape our climate and the creeping realization that climate change can change (and has changed in the past) much faster than anyone suspected 100 years ago.

While covering the science and history in some detail, he also takes great care to acknowledge the inherent uncertainties of climate science, focusing his attention later in the book on the public and political interplay in the process of discovery and discussion about climatic change. He also leaves room for continued debate, although it's clear that he has been convinced of the potential dangers of global warming by the available evidence. For those who find the book short on scientific material, a link is included to a website maintained by the author which contains much more material and data. The author also lists links to other prominent sites for climate change information, including sites which argue against its existence. Overall, I appreciate both the passion and the evident fairness that the author brings to his subject which leads me to give it 5 stars.

Edited March 29, 2014 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

It's not inconceivable that global warming might actually trigger another ice age.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

It's not inconceivable that global warming might actually trigger another ice age.

--Brant

It is possible. If the warming causes enough glacier melt it will shut down the Atlantic Conveyor which will make the north Atlantic very cold and could lead to glacier formation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Ogwah notwithstanding, this is a great thread. Love, triumph, schisms, Dan Edge, forcible confinement, Nixon, and more. Thanks especially to Ellen, MSK and Jonathan for reporting from the frontline.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Also, I want to mention Dan Edge. He blasted Harriman like you do, but part of that, also, is because he believes in the man-made global warming stuff. He asked people (see here on Facebook) to go to his blog (see here). That's where he extols the science behind global warming and said he spent 40 hours studying it, which is partly why he no longer considers himself to be an Objectivist.

[....]He leaves one tribe for another (the science tribe--which is not the same thing as respect for science) because the other looks like a better tribe. But he's still a cog in tribal machinery by choice and by heart. Otherwise, what would life mean?

Michael, I read Dan Edge's blog piece you linked above. (It's a handy source, since it has links to a bunch of other sources.)

I don't evaluate it the way you do, as his "leav[ing] one tribe for another."

Apparently, he thinks that, according to his understanding of Objectivism, he can't both be an Objectivist and be scientifically accurate.

Seems to me, it's a good question if one can be both. Depends on one's take on the perennially debated issue of how much, and precisely what, from Objectivism one has to accept to classify as an Objectivist.

I applaud Dan's seeking. He might go through further revisions as he progresses.

I do have to laugh - in a kindly intended way - at his conclusion about AGW after 40 hours study.

Not funny is his being misled by a site which is cleverly deceptive, the "Skeptical Science" site. I won't link to it, since I don't want to leave a back link.

I expect he'll learn more on the subject as he goes on.

Ellen

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, every one of your "Objectivism holds" is questionable respecting what it might hold instead depending on perspective and/or extent.

. . .

One more: "Admiration is the basis for love."

Brant,

This got me thinking on perspective. My fundamental perspective is different and I wonder if it shows in the way I phrase things.

For example, "Objectivism holds." I never say that. This implies Objectivism holds my life, my intent, my values, etc. That's not the way I do it.

I go this way. "I hold Objectivism." I am a me that is sufficient for me before I consider Objectivism. I add Objectivism to that, which means if Objectivism fell away, I would still be enough for me. I use some of the things in Objectivism as templates for specific things I want to do or for ways of thinking about different matters, but I do not use it as a template to pour my life into. From my perspective, I am much more important than Objectivism ever could be.

I don't know that we're necessarily in disagreement. When I say, "Objectivism holds," I'm referring to the generally held corpus of Objectivist thought and specifically to Ayn Rand's formulation of it. I'm not necessarily referring to what I believe or what I think you believe or should believe.

I'm not of the persuasion that thinks that Objectivists have to believe everything that Ayn Rand believed in order to call themselves Objectivists. Some people prefer that people like me use a small "o"-"objectivist" or "objectivish" or some other label and reserve the capital "O"-"Objectivist" to refer to people that agree with Rand on just about everything. I'm not one of those. So, I'm happy if you call yourself an Objectivist even if you don't agree with a lot of what Rand said, as long as you believe certain things that Objectivism --- the generally accepted corpus of Objectivist thought --- holds to be true.

My point is that by referring to what "Objectivism holds", I'm not necessarily saying that you have to agree. If I were talking about Christianity, I might say, "Christianity holds" such-and-such. I'm trying to look at Objectivism from the outside, even though I agree with much of it, just as I would look at Christianity from the outside if I were describing the generally held corpus of Christian dogma. But, I wouldn't expect anyone to be limited by what "Objectivism holds." Maybe you're right and Objectivism is wrong, on a particular issue.

This perspective is the same for "admiration is the basis for love." I don't do it that way either. I love. I start there. I do admire some of the people and things I love if, by admire I mean I want to become that way in some fundamental respect. But there are many other ways I love where the main component is something else--a feeling of wanting to protect them, a pleasure in watching them grow, even a contrast to my way of being. There are all kinds of things mixed up in my loves.

(I do admire Kat, though. I do. She's a good-guy type fighter for the things she wants and I deeply admire that. I want to emphasize this, too. She was not pleased about the snoring and farting thing. Let's say our discussion of that passage got colorful. )

In other words, I love. Then I look at what the components of that love are. I don't go about looking for something to admire, then try to pour love into it. And if I do love something or someone I admire and that admiration morphs into something else, I don't try to kill the love. On the contrary, I make a conscious effort to make sure it doesn't die. (Unless I decide the morphing has become so twisted, so unlike the way I see the world, especially if hostility is involved, I can't hold on any more.)

I didn't used to be this way. I used to be the other, trying to be a good Objectivist and trying to set my loves on pedestals where they never got any rest. And I made one holy mess after another in my personal life.

I now consider myself a wealthy man in the love department. I love a lot and I am loved a lot. Hell, I even love most of the regulars on OL. You're not supposed to say it, but I do.

That's a hell of a lot better than the constant hunger I used to feel.

Michael

By saying that admiration (or esteem) is the basis of love, I'm not saying that people experience it that way. It's sort of like the relationship between life and happiness. In VOS, Rand described happiness as the "psychological concomitant of life." Life is man's proper standard of value in the metaphysical sense but the psychological equivalent is happiness. Some dictionaries define "concomitant" as subordinate. In this context, emotion must be subordinate to metaphysical reality. Reality is primary. However, we don't often think in terms of metaphysical primaries. We think about what our emotions are telling us. We may be stressed about our jobs, but when we accomplish something, achieve our goals, and keep our jobs, we feel a sense of relief or even elation --- the stress is gone, for the time being. We don't think, "Wow! My life is 15% better than it was yesterday", even though the metaphysical reason for having a job is to survive and thrive.

In my view, one's estimate of another person is the metaphysical primary, but what we experience is love. Behind the scenes, so to speak, our brains are calculating how well the other person lives up to our values, rational or irrational, but what we experience is an emotional response. We don't think, "Wow! She's 24% more attractive than any woman I've ever met!" We think, "Wow! She's beautiful! I want her!" Or, we might meet someone and judge them unfavorably and have a negative emotional response, perhaps repulsion due to the way she laughs. Of course, these are superficial things that might come into our minds when we first see someone. Snoring and farting are also superficial things. We all snore and fart. Eventually, we get down to more important things like character and don't obsess on the superficial things.

I guess I've never had a problem with putting people on a pedestal. I mean, I have certain expectations, but I'm pretty down-to-earth about such things, perhaps because I came to objectivish thought on my own and it has never been like a religion for me. I've never felt a need to be a superman or succeed wildly either, at least not as a result of Objectivism. I've always dreamed of my own success, but I sort of killed the possibility of being really rich by trying to build a career around tackling difficult scientific problems. Mother nature does not disclose her secrets easily. At one time I was sort of arrogant, I suppose, but not because of Objectivism. I simply believed in my own invincibility, just like a lot of young men and women. I've outgrown that. At any rate, I have always been very demanding of myself, but not of other people.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, every one of your "Objectivism holds" is questionable respecting what it might hold instead depending on perspective and/or extent. Objectivism qua Objectivism I am not addressing. Consider perhaps the seemingly non-controversial: "Objectivism holds a person should act in his own self interest." Two questions are side-tracked. First, just what is one's "self interest" and, second, who doesn't so act? I'd add to your Objectivist proposition that it's morally right and one should not assume moral guilt for doing so. That guilt is altruistic and is used by the altruists--acting in what they see as their own self interest--to control people through guilt for doing what they need to do to survive as human beings qua human being. They want to control people for the sake of outright political power or political power sublimated into a religion.

One more: "Admiration is the basis for love." The non-admirable people can't love? Is it possible to fall into love without any feelings of admiration even if you are an admirable (lovable) person yourself? Sure. Psychology cuts way deeper than evaluations. But if that's you you will need to come to admire that other to maintain or justify the love or the love will evaporate even if you fight that by irrationally trying to improve a potential roamntic partner, for when you look at her you feel you are experiencing yourself through her seeing you. One can say much the same about friendships.

--Brant

Brant,

I think it is very hard for someone to love a person with no admirable qualities. Of course, people aren't always rational, but if your objective estimate of someone else is that that person has no redeeming qualities and is a complete loser, how could you fall in love with him or her, even if you were a complete loser yourself?

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Darrell, every one of your "Objectivism holds" is questionable respecting what it might hold instead depending on perspective and/or extent. Objectivism qua Objectivism I am not addressing. Consider perhaps the seemingly non-controversial: "Objectivism holds a person should act in his own self interest." Two questions are side-tracked. First, just what is one's "self interest" and, second, who doesn't so act? I'd add to your Objectivist proposition that it's morally right and one should not assume moral guilt for doing so. That guilt is altruistic and is used by the altruists--acting in what they see as their own self interest--to control people through guilt for doing what they need to do to survive as human beings qua human being. They want to control people for the sake of outright political power or political power sublimated into a religion.

One more: "Admiration is the basis for love." The non-admirable people can't love? Is it possible to fall into love without any feelings of admiration even if you are an admirable (lovable) person yourself? Sure. Psychology cuts way deeper than evaluations. But if that's you you will need to come to admire that other to maintain or justify the love or the love will evaporate even if you fight that by irrationally trying to improve a potential roamntic partner, for when you look at her you feel you are experiencing yourself through her seeing you. One can say much the same about friendships.

--Brant

Brant,

I think it is very hard for someone to love a person with no admirable qualities. Of course, people aren't always rational, but if your objective estimate of someone else is that that person has no redeeming qualities and is a complete loser, how could you fall in love with him or her, even if you were a complete loser yourself?

We'd have to inquire of the "complete losers." Look, let's put aside unevaluable ad absurdums. Let's take you--or me--who meets a seemingly admirable person and loves blooms. Then a few months into the relationship we discover our significant other is a psychopathic liar and the love crumbles. Seems plausible to me.

--Brant

take your time to know her . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrell,

Sometimes I get on a premise-checking kick.

"Objectivism holds."

That caused me to pause. I never say that or need to say it because I never try to debunk Objectivism nor try to preserve it against attack. I'm a stickler for people being accurate when they say Rand said this or Objectivism says that, but I don't care if they think "Objectivism holds" or not. That's their business, not mine.

That's basically my meaning. I think this popped out at me because I'm doing some study on unconscious language patterns and the phrases we choose often tell us a lot more that they seem. Personifying Objectivism and claiming it holds when no one suggested otherwise contains an underlying message, whether we consciously would never say that message or even agree with it.

Before I would have used a term like that. Now I'm not comfortable with the insinuation. But that's me.

btw - I generally don't call myself an Objectivist because I don't want to confuse my image with that of certain people who do call themselves that--i.e., folks who are trying to save the world by converting people to Obejctivism, i.e., those engaged in an "Objectivist movement."

But I do consider myself an Objectivist in one sense. A person who studied Kant in depth might call himself a Kantian because he's an expert in the philosophy, not because he tries to convert people to Kantism. (Is that even a word. ) I take that approach. Not that I am the world's greatest expert on Randian thought, but I do know a lot from reading and study and application. My roots are Objectivist, but what appears growing in the garden does not always look like that.

So I rarely wear the label when talking about myself.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Robert Tracinski's take on what he calls "David Harriman’s public defection from the Leonard Peikoff wing of the movement to the David Kelley wing."

The 1980s Called, and They Want Their Objectivism Back

It's an all right essay. It deals more with criticizing the orthodoxy than the Harriman thing, but he has are some interesting takes.

And speaking of takes, I take strong issue with his view of Barbara (and Nathaniel, for that matter). He gives the typical canned orthodoxy view of how Barbara damaged Rand, wrote her bio of Rand as "scurrilous attack on Objectivism," yada yada yada, but he doesn't really know all that much about it since he was never concerned with Rand's personal life, only her ideas. You can almost see the nose raise when people from (or rooted in) the ortho camp say this crap.

I seriously doubt he read Barbara's book and his writing sounds like he got most of his information about both Brandens second hand or, as he would say, at two degrees or more of separation. But that doesn't stop him for stating--as fact--that they "copped" to "to many (but not all) of the dishonest, scheming, and manipulative things they did when they were running the organized movement that surrounded Ayn Rand in the 1960s."

This is in clear contrast to Barbara's promotion of him and his magazine over years. Whenever his name came up, she never failed to recommend to people to read Tracinski's work. And she was extremely gracious about it. No reservations at all. I know this because I heard it from her lips and I am sure it is written here on OL in several places under her own account.

So I'll let readers come to their own conclusions about who the bigger person is.

Tracinski wants to be above schism stuff, but insists on perpetuating some of it. The phrase, "physician, heal thyself," comes to mind.

However, the rest of the essay is a fairly decent read. I especially liked his comments about how Facebook killed Schwartz's don't sanction the sanctioners thing by recording for public view how absurd this plays out.

I recommend it, and I do, but with reservation.

I'm not as elegant as Barbara.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I applaud Dan's seeking. He might go through further revisions as he progresses.

Ellen,

I'll leave it simply saying, with some serious hesitancy, I hope so.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Michael said "I generally don't call myself an Objectivist because I don't want to confuse my image with that of certain people who do call themselves that--i.e., folks who are trying to save the world by converting people to Obejctivism, i.e., those engaged in an "Objectivist movement."

AR once said (I believe in the Playboy interview or The Objectivist Newsletter?) she didn't want to be lumped with any group.

I feel the same way and usually describe my overall philosophy & political positions as an advocate of individual rights. Anyone I engage vocally about individual rights or politics I refer them to Rands works after I offer a brief synopsis. Hell, she presented the case so powerfully & clearly....light years ahead of me.

[dsaum]

Also, I want to mention Dan Edge. He blasted Harriman like you do, but part of that, also, is because he believes in the man-made global warming stuff. He asked people (see here on Facebook) to go to his blog (see here). That's where he extols the science behind global warming and said he spent 40 hours studying it, which is partly why he no longer considers himself to be an Objectivist.

I looked at Dan Edge's blog and find some problems.

For instance, he begins by saying that Harriman rejects quantum theory. That is incorrect. Harriman says many times in his lectures that quantum theory equations are correct and that fact is well established by experiments, but many of the interpretations of those equations, e.g. Copenhagen Interpretation, are incorrect. Edge's broken link proving his thesis seems to be a quote from a blurb for one of Harriman's lectures, and this blub is probably not even a direct Harriman quote. All of this leads me to believe that Edge probably never listened to any of Harriman's lectures.

I think the root problem with Harriman's physics is that it is polemical and not objective.

[Brant Gaede]

Also, I want to mention Dan Edge. He blasted Harriman like you do, but part of that, also, is because he believes in the man-made global warming stuff. He asked people (see here on Facebook) to go to his blog (see here). That's where he extols the science behind global warming and said he spent 40 hours studying it, which is partly why he no longer considers himself to be an Objectivist.

I looked at Dan Edge's blog and find some problems.

For instance, he begins by saying that Harriman rejects quantum theory. That is incorrect. Harriman says many times in his lectures that quantum theory equations are correct and that fact is well established by experiments, but many of the interpretations of those equations, e.g. Copenhagen Interpretation, are incorrect. Edge's broken link proving his thesis seems to be a quote from a blurb for one of Harriman's lectures, and this blub is probably not even a direct Harriman quote. All of this leads me to believe that Edge probably never listened to any of Harriman's lectures.

I think the root problem with Harriman's physics is that it is polemical and not objective.

Physics sans science?

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I looked at Dan Edge's blog and find some problems.

For instance, he begins by saying that Harriman rejects quantum theory. That is incorrect. Harriman says many times in his lectures that quantum theory equations are correct and that fact is well established by experiments, but many of the interpretations of those equations, e.g. Copenhagen Interpretation, are incorrect. Edge's broken link proving his thesis seems to be a quote from a blurb for one of Harriman's lectures, and this blub is probably not even a direct Harriman quote. All of this leads me to believe that Edge probably never listened to any of Harriman's lectures.

I think the root problem with Harriman's physics is that it is polemical and not objective.

There are no "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations. It's clear that Harriman wants to imply that QM itself, in its entirety, is wrong but he doesn't want to come off as a crackpot. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

[9thdoctor]

There are no "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations. It's clear that Harriman wants to imply that QM itself, in its entirety, is wrong but he doesn't want to come off as a crackpot. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

There was a talk of Harriman's available online for free, but I'm having trouble finding it to link it. The ARI website has had a facelift since I last visited. In any event, my memory of his position was that he opposed the Copenhagen interpretation, and favored David Bohm's. How about a citation where he says QM is wrong in its entirety?

BTW, Harriman's lectures are still for sale from the ARI store.

https://estore.aynrand.org/c/20/science?pagenumber=2

Maybe not for long!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here is Robert Tracinski's take on what he calls "David Harrimans public defection from the Leonard Peikoff wing of the movement to the David Kelley wing."

The 1980s Called, and They Want Their Objectivism Back

On the Epstein Facebook thread, Rick Wilmes quotes two long comments by Judd Weiss which Wilmes says are from the comments thread of the Tracinski essay - here and here.

But when I click on either Michael's or Wilmes' own link to the Tracinski article, no comments appear.

Does someone have to be a subscriber to Tracinski's newsletter to read comments? I don't see anything saying that.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the Epstein Facebook thread, Rick Wilmes quotes two long comments by Judd Weiss which Wilmes says are from the comments thread of the Tracinski essay - here and here.

But when I click on either Michael's or Wilmes' own link to the Tracinski article, no comments appear.

Ellen,

I can't be 100% sure, but I would give it about a 99.99% chance that Judd did not write those passages.

The writing style is quite different between those alleged excerpts and his normal stuff.

If this Wilmes guy faked text to attribute to Judd, he embarrassed himself and everyone he claims to defend. Unless he's transposed to O-Land in some weird rationalization the policy from Scientology's fair game, where lying and making stuff up is condoned and even encouraged (at one time) against a "suppressive person."

And if he did that, he did not just embarrass his peeps. He shit on them.

I'll be happy to be wrong if links can be found where Judd actually wrote those things, but right now I don't think I am.

EDIT: Here's an example of a passage this Wilmes guy claims Judd wrote--from this post: (Facebook has weird post link problems, so you basically have to scroll down to Comment No. 256 if the link doesn't take you there.)

To anyone who can tie their shoes, I highly recommend Nathaniel's books. I think they are absolutely essential, more practically valuable reading than Ayn Rand's works. I recommend people drop what they're doing, even if they're in med school or a practicing attorney or whatever, and read Nathaniel's 6 Pillars book. It's that important and useful to the rest of their life. I don't think I would have achieved the success I have if I didn't build my life based on the framework of what I learned from Nathaniel's books.

Does this sound like the same Judd Weiss I have been reading?

That anybody has been reading?

Hell no.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

In any event, my memory of his position was that he opposed the Copenhagen interpretation, and favored David Bohm's.

That's also my memory of his position on Q.M.

Ellen

PS to clarify something. It isn't my view of Harriman that he gets everything wrong. He spin doctors history, he's contradictory, he has bees in his bonnet (e.g., on relativity and cosmology) which lead him astray, he distorts Newton, whom he uses as the exemplar of method, and he makes erroneous claims about current science in relation to Newton (this as part of his supporting Peikoff's "contextual truth" notion). His whole way of approach is shot through with casuistry, plus I think he's just plain ignorant on a fair amount, but this doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong. However, even when I've read or heard him say something I thought was right, it was in an over-all context which I thought was wrong-headed.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the read, Ellen. The gentleman does not yet know or acknowledge or accept, perhaps because he wasn't there, that the basic problem goes all the way straight back to Ayn Rand herself right into her great novel and the moralizing power of Galt's Speech. Objectivism, commonly understood, is not based on reality and reason but on a great work of art. The reality and reason are grafted on but not applied to the philosophy as explicated but to the audience not told it was reality and reason only purely and properly applicable to the world of Atlas Shrugged, something of an arbitrary philosophical construct based mostly on cultural values. The teaching of the philosophy, primarily through NBI in the 1960s, had to work off that. Nathaniel Branden commonly told one and all to read the novel first--then discuss, discuss, discuss (Objectivism) with and through him (NBI or even, in some cases, personally).

--Brant

Objectivism: reality, reason, rational self interest, laissez faire capitalism (individual rights, freedom): who needs to read the novel to study these ideas unless one is actually studying the novel's purported use of them?--Atlas Shrugged was to have been enough, but to accommodate Nathaniel Branden an unnecessay Atlas Shrugged-type of Objectivism was necessary: the price of having had him in her bed and perhaps of getting him back there (no wonder she got so pissed off when she didn't get paid and knew she never would![?])

enemy of Objectivism (moi?)

[Mark]

The ARI website has had a facelift since I last visited.

And it broke all the links on other websites. All, I think, except for the domain name. Also, in the renovation ARI removed a huge amount of their earlier material.

Most of the missing non-multi-media pages can be found on the Internet Wayback Machine. The addresses for the ARI articles advocating invading Iraq, praising the virtue of dying for freedom around the world and how great Israel is, are listed at

Disappeared from ARI

I may have missed a few, I’ll double check when I have nothing else to do, LOL.

Background for the latest fiasco:

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. John McCaskey

This describes how Peikoff forced McCaskey off the ARI board in defense of Harriman’s book (which was based on some of Peikoff’s ideas). Because of the renovation I had to change one of the links (November 11 "A Statement ...") to the Wayback Machine copy.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Background for the latest fiasco:

The Ayn Rand Institute vs. John McCaskey

This describes how Peikoff forced McCaskey off the ARI board in defense of Harrimans book (which was based on some of Peikoffs ideas). Because of the renovation I had to change one of the links (November 11 "A Statement ...") to the Wayback Machine copy.

First, although Peikoff himself, in his email to Arline Mann (copied below), described The Logical Leap as being "based" on his, Peikoff's, course on induction, the actual relationship is stronger. Material in the book is taken "nearly verbatim from Dr. Peikoff's lectures" (quoting from Harriman's Preface).

(I can attest that the description "nearly verbatim" is accurate, since I heard and took notes on exact wording from relevant sections of the course. The changes are stylistic, issues of smoothing out sentences.)

Here is the passage from Harriman's Preface to The Logical Leap in which he describes his and Peikoff's respective contributions:

[bold emphasis added]

In essence, the original philosophic ideas belong to Dr. Peikoff, while I provided their illustration in the history of science. In particular, the philosophic foundation presented in Chapter 1 is taken nearly verbatim from Dr. Peikoff's lectures. Also, I have incorporated into Chapter 2 his discussion of concepts as "green lights to induction." Finally, many of the essential points in Chapter 7, including the explanation for the role of mathematics in physical science, are taken from his lectures.

In addition, every chapter of the book has benefited greatly from his line-by-line scrutiny. The balancing act that I have tried to achieve - moving back and forth between the science and the philosophy, covering the former in sufficient depth while keeping the focus on the latter - was a challenging job, and Dr. Peikoff has been a very generous editor and teacher, Of course, any errors in the science and its history are entirely my responsibility.

Next, courtesy of Mark:

link

[bold emphasis added]

Here is the email that Mr. Peikoff sent Arline Mann, a lawyer for ARI and co-chairman of the ARI board of directors (the first bracketed word, legal, and all abbreviations AR for Ayn Rand, and so forth are in the original; as is the word whom at the end of one paragraph; we leave off our external quote marks):

From: Leonard Peikoff

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 ...

To: Mann, Arline [Legal]

Cc: Yaron Brook

Subject: Your call

Hi Arline,

...

I do not want to argue what I regard as facts:

That M[cCaskey] attacks Dave[ Harriman]s book, and thus, explicitly or implicitly, my intro praising it as expressing ARs epistemology, and also my course on induction, on which the book is based.

I have seen a large part of this criticism myself, and have heard its overall tenor and content from others who attended a forum on the subject. I do not know where else he has voiced these conclusions, but size to me is irrelevant in this context. By the way, from the emails I have seen, his disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.

In essence, his behavior amounts to: Peikoff is misguided, Harriman is misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on these issues is inadequate, and M is the one pointing the flaws out.

When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me -- I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism -- is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go, and will go. It is your prerogative to decide whom.

I do understand how much money M has brought to ARI, and how many college appointments he has gotten and is still getting. As Ayn would have put it, that raises him one rung in Hell, but it does not convert Objectivism into pragmatism.

...

Best wishes,

Leonard

In short, Peikoff was not reacting to what he perceived as minor critique of the work of a protege. He was reacting to what he perceived - and rightly imo - as a challenge to his, Peikoff's, own working out of a supposedly Objectivist account of induction.

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

There are no "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations. It's clear that Harriman wants to imply that QM itself, in its entirety, is wrong but he doesn't want to come off as a crackpot. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

There was a talk of Harriman's available online for free, but I'm having trouble finding it to link it. The ARI website has had a facelift since I last visited. In any event, my memory of his position was that he opposed the Copenhagen interpretation, and favored David Bohm's. How about a citation where he says QM is wrong in its entirety?

BTW, Harriman's lectures are still for sale from the ARI store.

https://estore.aynrand.org/c/20/science?pagenumber=2

Maybe not for long!

I just said why he will never admit to this. However, it is plain as day that he supports the Bohmian interpretation, not because he has any understanding of the issues involved, but because (at least he thinks) it seems to mesh well with his philosophical prejudices. And, according to Harriman, what agrees (superficially, in my opinion) with his philosophical prejudices is what is factually true, and anything that does not is factually false.