Illogical Leap: Why Harriman's account of induction is daft nonsense

[George H. Smith]

Hume didn't "stare into the abyss." He created an epistemological abyss and then wisely ignored it -- and I mean completely ignored it -- when pursuing his work in moral, political, and social theory, economics, and history -- none of which would have been possible if Hume had taken his own epistemological theories seriously.

Just what is the "abyss" George?

It is brazenly obvious from his epistemological theory that he never had any intention of taking it "seriously" in the sense you wish to assert here.

I thought you said you've read Hume numerous times? So it seems like you never understood what he was saying.

Shayne

Your remarks are too ridiculous to waste much time with. If you want me to take them more seriously, then quote something from Hume that supports your contention. We will soon find out who does and does not understand him.

In the Introduction to his Treatise of Human Nature, Hume was very clear about his belief that his epistemology would provide the bedrock for all other sciences, both natural and moral. ("Moral sciences" included all disciplines that study human action, such as ethics, economics, politics, social theory, etc.) Quoting Hume:

'This impossible to tell what changes and improvements we might make in these sciences were we thoroughly acquainted with the extent and force of human understanding, and cou'd explain the nature of the ideas we employ, and of the operations we perform in our reasonings....If therefore the sciences of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, have such a dependence on the knowledge of man, what may be expected in the other sciences, whose connexion with human nature is more close and intimate? The sole end of logic is to explain the principles and operations of our reasoning faculty, and the nature of our ideas: morals and criticism regard our tastes and sentiments: and politics consider men as united in society, and dependent on each other....

So much for your absurd claim that Hume "never had any intention of taking" his epistemological theories seriously so far as they relate to other disciplines. The exact reverse is true. Hume explicitly offers his epistemology as the foundation of a "science of man."

The desire to construct an integrated "science of man" was a popular goal among luminaries of the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment, but other Scottish philosophers, such as Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, and Thomas Reid, had the good sense to reject Hume's nihilistic epistemological skepticism. As Reid, one of Hume's most formidable critics, put it: "To pretend to prove by reasoning that there is no force in reason, does indeed look like a philosophical delirium. It is like a man's pretending to see clearly, that he himself and all other men are blind."

Ghs

[sjw]

Hume didn't "stare into the abyss." He created an epistemological abyss and then wisely ignored it -- and I mean completely ignored it -- when pursuing his work in moral, political, and social theory, economics, and history -- none of which would have been possible if Hume had taken his own epistemological theories seriously.

Just what is the "abyss" George?

It is brazenly obvious from his epistemological theory that he never had any intention of taking it "seriously" in the sense you wish to assert here.

I thought you said you've read Hume numerous times? So it seems like you never understood what he was saying.

Shayne

Your remarks are too ridiculous to waste much time with. If you want me to take them more seriously, then quote something from Hume that supports your contention. We will soon find out who does and does not understand him.

Yes, I am starting to learn that if I contradict you, then my remarks are ridiculous. Just as I have learned that if you ever fail to understand what I am saying, then it was my fault for not communicating well. And in this thread I'm also learning that you're not the gentleman I thought you were giving your willingness to stoop down to Selene's mode of mocking me. I will be taking this into account in the future.

I don't know what quotes to dig out for you because I don't know what you're disputing. Do you dispute that Hume was aware of the fact that in order to live, one has to go quite beyond what he thought one could rationally justify? I can probably find you a quote about that. He as much says that one can't know that a loaf of bread will nourish using reason (in his misdefinition of the term) alone. The obvious implication is that he fully intends to use something other than reason in order to pursue matters of importance to him. So I find it completely unsurprising that he used something other than what he denoted as reason in every other realm of his life.

Shayne

[sjw]

Physicists attempt to stare into the abyss:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe

[Starbuckle]

Shayne, I'm afraid I cannot let you serve on the board.

[George H. Smith]

Hume didn't "stare into the abyss." He created an epistemological abyss and then wisely ignored it -- and I mean completely ignored it -- when pursuing his work in moral, political, and social theory, economics, and history -- none of which would have been possible if Hume had taken his own epistemological theories seriously.

Just what is the "abyss" George?

It is brazenly obvious from his epistemological theory that he never had any intention of taking it "seriously" in the sense you wish to assert here.

I thought you said you've read Hume numerous times? So it seems like you never understood what he was saying.

Shayne

Your remarks are too ridiculous to waste much time with. If you want me to take them more seriously, then quote something from Hume that supports your contention. We will soon find out who does and does not understand him.

Yes, I am starting to learn that if I contradict you, then my remarks are ridiculous. Just as I have learned that if you ever fail to understand what I am saying, then it was my fault for not communicating well. And in this thread I'm also learning that you're not the gentleman I thought you were giving your willingness to stoop down to Selene's mode of mocking me. I will be taking this into account in the future.

I don't know what quotes to dig out for you because I don't know what you're disputing. Do you dispute that Hume was aware of the fact that in order to live, one has to go quite beyond what he thought one could rationally justify? I can probably find you a quote about that. He as much says that one can't know that a loaf of bread will nourish using reason (in his misdefinition of the term) alone. The obvious implication is that he fully intends to use something other than reason in order to pursue matters of importance to him. So I find it completely unsurprising that he used something other than what he denoted as reason in every other realm of his life.

Shayne

Since you have been blunt, I will reciprocate.

I have been fascinated by the Scottish Enlightenment since the early 1970's. (The quotation I gave earlier from Thomas Reid was also quoted in ATCAG, which I finished in 1973. It is from Reid's Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man; I have owned a copy of this book for nearly 40 years.) Even after paring back my library drastically over 15 years ago, I still own over 50 books relating to the Scottish Enlightenment, most of which (including everything Hume ever published and many secondary sources) I have reread frequently. Moreover, in the four audio tapes I wrote for Knowledge Products during the 1980s, two (nearly 100 manuscript pages) were on the Scottish Enlightenment and included lengthy discussions of Hume's attempts to establish a "science of man."

I know as much about the Scottish Enlightenment as any person you are likely to meet in your lifetime, so I don't care to be lectured by some novice, who only recently has begun reading Hume, about what Hume really meant.

And before you start whining that I am appealing to authority, I will point out that we are talking about a historical issue, and in matters like this such appeals are perfectly legitimate. I know more about Hume than you would learn in 10 lifetimes, and I don't appreciate some pipsqueak telling me that I have "never understood what he is saying."

In short, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to Hume's ideas. You have the perfect right to disagree with my interpretation of Hume, of course, but you need to engage in some serious study of Hume and his historical context before you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Later edit.] Hume was deadly serious about establishing an epistemology that would serve as a foundation for all other knowledge. (In this respect his aspirations were the same as Rand's.) Hume characterized himself as the Newton of the moral sciences. By this he meant that all "hypotheses" should be rejected in favor of knowledge grounded in experience. But his empiricism degenerated into skepticism and became useless, indeed counterproductive, to achieve this goal.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

[Later edit.] Hume was deadly serious about establishing an epistemology that would serve as a foundation for all other knowledge. (In this respect his aspirations were the same as Rand's.) Hume characterized himself as the Newton of the moral sciences. By this he meant that all "hypotheses" should be rejected in favor of knowledge grounded in experience. But his empiricism degenerated into skepticism and became useless, indeed counterproductive, to achieve this goal.

Ghs

If you had been in a position to advise and criticize Hume (while he was still living) what criticism and advise would you have given him to avoid the error you indicated?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

[Later edit.] Hume was deadly serious about establishing an epistemology that would serve as a foundation for all other knowledge. (In this respect his aspirations were the same as Rand's.) Hume characterized himself as the Newton of the moral sciences. By this he meant that all "hypotheses" should be rejected in favor of knowledge grounded in experience. But his empiricism degenerated into skepticism and became useless, indeed counterproductive, to achieve this goal.

Ghs

If you had been in a position to advise and criticize Hume (while he was still living) what criticism and advise would you have given him to avoid the error you indicated?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is a fascinating question, and a difficult one to answer simply.

I suppose I would advise Hume to take the mental process of abstraction more seriously rather than curtly dismissing it as "unintelligible, and even absurd." (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 3rd ed., ed. Selby-Bigge, p. 154.) I would also advise him to be more skeptical about his own premises, especially the representationalist theory of perception, according to which we are immediately aware not of a world external to consciousness but only of our own ideas (i.e., our own mental states).

Hume, as is well known, pushed some fundamental weaknesses of British empiricism to their logical and nihilistic conclusions. In this respect he was following in the footsteps of Berkeley. I would therefore advise Hume to take a different approach to the problem of knowledge, one that was pursued by Thomas Reid, Hume's greatest contemporary critic and the founder of "common sense" philosophy, a school of thought that exerted a profound influence on Jefferson and many of his American contemporaries.

Reid thought it quite obvious that we have reliable knowledge of many things, and he traced the history of certain empiricist dogmas (especially the representationalist theory) that led to the opposite conclusion, namely, that such knowledge is impossible. Reid's working presumption in favor of knowledge, which he believed to be a matter of "common sense," led him to question and rebut the philosophical theories (especially those of Hume) that claim we cannot acquire knowledge.

Reid's approach can be described as a type of skepticism, but his skepticism was directed at theories that result in absurd conclusions. For Reid, the important question is "How do we acquire knowledge?" -- not "Can we acquire knowledge?"

Hume clearly understood that his skepticism cannot be applied without disaster to science, mathematics, and the business of everyday life. For Reid, this was a strong indication that there is something terribly wrong with Hume's conclusions and the premises that generated them. Thus, rather than follow Hume's advice that we should dismiss philosophic reasoning as irrelevant and simply ignore it, Hume should have taken a more critical stance towards his own reasoning, especially the unquestioned premises on which it was based. Hume should have been more skeptical of his own skepticism, so to speak.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, I appreciate that you have studied Hume for nearly 40 years, but how many years did you study him to substantially get him?

--Brant

[sjw]

Since George is too busy stamping around the house showing us his trophies and credentials to actually address the issues, I don't have much to say other than that the Hume I read contradicts the Hume he's going on about.

I don't claim to be an expert on Hume, I'm just saying that the critical section where Hume examines induction, he very clearly indicates two premises 1) reason cannot justify induction; 2) but we'd better use induction anyway (he calls this "Custom" or "habit" not induction).

He is very clear that he has no intention to dismiss what he has failed to square with reason and what he claims cannot be squared with reason; on the contrary, he quite applauds this "intuition" that nature gave us. So for him, induction is just a black box where something magic happens, and he fully intends to employ this black box and live and work like an ordinary human being in that realm. He is really no worse off than someone who doesn't explicitly think about epistemology, basically all he's saying is that there's part of what his mind does that he can't justify in rational terms. He's not saying he's not going to use that part.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

You have to know how to engage George, Shayne. You have to deal with him on his level of understanding and he has no tolerance for anything else. It's exceedingly painful for an expert to be lectured about his expertness by a non-expert. You never see me in any argument with him because I know where my knowledge stops and his continues on in the detailed and nuanced elaborations of a world class expert. While you know more about Hume than I do, ostensibly anyway, I know what I don't know. You don't, at least apropos the subject at hand, which makes me an educated man in a way you are not yet. (You probably find my statement unreal.) This is generally true of philosophical as opposed to technical subjects such as physics. A world-class physicist can easily peak in his early or mid twenties. All a philosopher can do is keep reading, studying and writing until he peaks, likely in his late 40s or even older, but he'll then keep going anyway, as long as he can. What the true philosopher wants to do is improve cognitively, continually.

As for Hume, I've been reading about him and I'm overcome with a desperate need to read him; I suddenly feel intolerably uneducated. I will, consequently, read him. I myself do not read to be an expert on this guy or that gal or any particular subject, but to complete my mosaic of proper understanding of human reality for yet another purpose, the yet unrealized purpose of my own life.

--Brant

he should have poisoned Rousseau

[sjw]

While you know more about Hume than I do, ostensibly anyway, I know what I don't know. You don't, at least apropos the subject at hand, which makes me an educated man in a way you are not yet.

Bullshit. I know what I read. I don't claim to know more than that. You haven't read him at all so at least be consistent and stop pretending to know what he said.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

George, I appreciate that you have studied Hume for nearly 40 years, but how many years did you study him to substantially get him?

--Brant

I actually started reading Hume in 1964, while a high school sophomore, two years before I first read Ayn Rand. My interest in Hume was sparked by my interest in the history of freethought, so at that time I focused primarily on his religious skepticism.

Hume is not very difficult to understand, so it didn't take long to "get" him.

I have always found Hume's epistemological skepticism annoying, especially when it has been linked to religious skepticism. In 1974, before ATCAG was published, I wrote an article for Reason Magazine titled "Atheism and Objectivism." (This is reprinted in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.) In the course of categorizing different types of atheism, I wrote:

Most contemporary atheists are epistemological atheists, and there are many subcategories of this approach. First, there is skeptical atheism, which derives from a skepticism about all knowledge (or at least certain knowledge), whether of God or anything else. Of course, if one can't know anything, then one can't know of God's existence, and atheism follows inevitably -- but this is a disastrously high price to pay in defense of atheism, not to mention that it is an absurd position to maintain.

Although not an atheist himself, the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume laid the foundation for skeptical atheism in some respects. Hume did not deny the possibility of all knowledge [note how I was cutting him some slack here], but he did uphold certain epistemological positions, which, if carried to their logical extremes, lead inevitably to epistemological nihilism. This is not to deny Hume's contributions to the critique of theism -- his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, for example, is a masterful work -- but many of Hume's criticisms of religion are based on a more basic critique of human knowledge in general....

It should be stressed that epistemological skepticism, while providing a superficial defense of atheism, works more in favor of theism. If it is impossible to justify our knowledge claims, then one belief becomes as good as any other. The theist cannot justify his beliefs, but, according to skepticism, neither can the atheist. Skepticism invites people to play deuces-wild with their knowledge claims; the belief in a god becomes as defensible -- or, more accurately, indefensible -- as any other.

I expanded on this theme in considerable detail in "The Skepticism of Faith," Chapter 5 of Atheism: The Case Against God.

In addition to the standard college stuff and the work I did for Knowledge Products during the 1980s, I devoted quite a bit of time to Hume's epistemology while writing Why Atheism? My interest in this context had to do with the enormous influence of Pyrrhonic skepticism in post-Renaissance philosophy, when it was often used by Catholics, such as Montaigne, to defend fideism, i.e., the doctrine that we must rely on faith for knowledge that reason is unable to provide.

I have never found anything of value in Hume's epistemology. As Hume himself acknowledged, it is essentially, with some modifications, warmed-over Pyrrhonic skepticism. By the time Hume wrote, many of his basic arguments had been presented by earlier Pyrrhonic skeptics, such as Montaigne and Pierre Bayle. (Bayle in particular greatly influenced Hume.) The difference is that Montaigne and Bayle used epistemological skepticism to defend religious faith, whereas Hume did not. He appealed instead to the psychological nature of man. He maintained that skepticism, though philosophically irrefutable, is psychologically impossible to believe. Hence it doesn't make any difference whether you are a skeptic or not; you will still act and believe as everyone else does. Thus does the first part of Hume's Treatise end with an Emily Latella style sign-off when Hume says, in effect, "Never mind."

In short, we are able to get along in the world precisely because we do not follow the dictates of reason. Hume understood very well the implications of this conclusion. If, on the one hand, we ignore what reason tells us, "we run into the most manifest absurdities." If, on the other hand, we follow the dictates of reason, "we subvert entirely the human understanding." Hence: "We have, therefore, no choice left but betwixt a false reason and none at all." (Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge ed., p. 268).

It is difficult to imagine a more vicious dichotomy than this.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Since George is too busy stamping around the house showing us his trophies and credentials to actually address the issues, I don't have much to say other than that the Hume I read contradicts the Hume he's going on about.

I don't claim to be an expert on Hume, I'm just saying that the critical section where Hume examines induction, he very clearly indicates two premises 1) reason cannot justify induction; 2) but we'd better use induction anyway (he calls this "Custom" or "habit" not induction).

He is very clear that he has no intention to dismiss what he has failed to square with reason and what he claims cannot be squared with reason; on the contrary, he quite applauds this "intuition" that nature gave us. So for him, induction is just a black box where something magic happens, and he fully intends to employ this black box and live and work like an ordinary human being in that realm. He is really no worse off than someone who doesn't explicitly think about epistemology, basically all he's saying is that there's part of what his mind does that he can't justify in rational terms. He's not saying he's not going to use that part.

Shayne

I have neither the time nor patience to deal with all the confusion and misrepresentations in this exposition. I have dealt with some of these issues in recent posts, including my last, so I will let it go at that, at least for now.

Suffice it to say that if you wrote this for an undergraduate class in philosophy, you would be very lucky to get a passing grade. At the very least, you should read a good secondary source on Hume.

Ghs

[anthony]

George,

This explains a lot about the skeptical (uber-cynical) atheists (or ex-theists) I've personally known.

Their approach is - "dumped one big thing, dump it all", I sense.

Would their skepticism be 'psycho-epistemological', essentially?

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

While you know more about Hume than I do, ostensibly anyway, I know what I don't know. You don't, at least apropos the subject at hand, which makes me an educated man in a way you are not yet.

Bullshit. I know what I read. I don't claim to know more than that. You haven't read him at all so at least be consistent and stop pretending to know what he said.

I tried, but I thought you were intelligent. I will no longer engage you about anything nor read you either.

--Brant

[PDS]

I, for one, appreciate the "HarriPei" pun George has instituted for DH and LP.

Seriously, let us not forget that Ayn Rand titled IOE as an "Introduction" to Objectivist epistemology: i.e., the book explicitly is (by the most relevant dictionary definition of the word) a "preliminary part" of Objectivist epistemology.

As such, there was always going to be a push and pull over the rounding out of an epistemological framework influenced by Objectivism. HarriPei's efforts is one of the first pushes, and there are bound to be pulls in response, but apart from personality-driven issues that might be highly annoying, there is nothing to be upset about with their efforts.

Two Objectivist philosophers/intellectuals have collaborated and published a book on induction. Isn't this a good thing?

Edited October 21, 2010 by PDS

[George H. Smith]

George,

This explains a lot about the skeptical (uber-cynical) atheists (or ex-theists) I've personally known.

Their approach is - "dumped one big thing, dump it all", I sense.

Would their skepticism be 'psycho-epistemological', essentially?

Tony

I don't know about the psycho-epistemological part, but I know very well the type of atheist/freethinker/religious skeptic that you refer to. In my early freethought years, I got sick of encountering this approach, time and again. Indeed, this is what initially attracted me to Ayn Rand when I saw her on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. (I believe she appeared three times in all.) I had never heard of Rand before, but I liked her defense of reason, and I got really interested when Carson asked if she was an atheist. "Of course," was her terse and confident reply, as if the matter were self-evident. (I recall that William Buckley was on one of those shows, and that at one point Rand said to him, "Mr. Buckley, you are far too intelligent to be a Christian." Pretty heady stuff for the Tonight Show.)

Rand affected me like a breath of fresh air. Here as last was an atheist who also defended the efficacy of reason and who viewed atheism as a natural -- indeed, fairly incidental -- implication of a commitment ot reason.

Of course, I knew that Rand was not the only atheist who took this approach. There have been defenders of reason in both the freethought and humanist traditions. (These traditions overlap to some extent but are not exactly the same thing.) But I had grown weary of humanists in particular, as they droned on about how Christianity undercuts authentic altruism and should be rejected for that reason.

Around a month after seeing Rand on the Carson Show, while I was in a Tucson bookstore, I happened across The Virtue of Selfishness. After spotting the title, I said to my best friend, Greg: "Hey, that's my kind of book!" So I bought it and read it, after which I bought Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and read it. Then came For the New Intellectual and Who is Ayn Rand? -- followed by a subscription to "The Objectivist."

I am not much of a fiction reader, so it took a couple years before I got around to Rand's novels. I liked The Fountainhead a lot, but didn't care much for Atlas Shrugged. (I liked the speeches, however, and the hope of encountering another one kept me reading.)

Btw, are Rand's Tonight Show appearances available anywhere? I haven't seen them since they originally aired.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Btw, are Rand's Tonight Show appearances available anywhere? I haven't seen them since they originally aired.

They’re transcribed here: http://www.amazon.com/Objectively-Speaking-Ayn-Rand-Interviewed/dp/073913194X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287687298&sr=8-1

I think you’re wrong about her appearing with Buckley, though he did report those words in his vicious obituary of her.

CORRECTION: he reported her saying "you are much too intelligent to believe in God". He wrote it out in a Russian accent, God was Gott, as I recall.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[sjw]

While you know more about Hume than I do, ostensibly anyway, I know what I don't know. You don't, at least apropos the subject at hand, which makes me an educated man in a way you are not yet.

Bullshit. I know what I read. I don't claim to know more than that. You haven't read him at all so at least be consistent and stop pretending to know what he said.

I tried, but I thought you were intelligent. I will no longer engage you about anything nor read you either.

--Brant

You read an entire book that I wrote, and only now, when I'm not putting up with your nonsense, when I assert that I know what I read, are you able to discern whether or not you think I'm intelligent? Something tells me that you're using something other than reason to determine such things.

I haven't read all of Hume, I just read what I read, but in what I read it's pretty damn clear what Hume meant -- although it is less clear (apparently) what is valuable in what he wrote.

George has chosen to take something I said a certain cock-eyed way and cause a flurry of pointless arguments. I won't pretend to be in his head, but I am starting to think that he is only here to exercise his aging brain cells, and that he thinks the best way to do that is to have pissing contests, and if somebody doesn't seem willing to have one then he just pisses all over them.

This nonsense is not worth my time.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I saw only one of the three Tonight Show appearances. I was also in Tucson. If they have been transcribed they must be preserved if only as audio recordings. Carson was furious when he learned that many of his shows had been taped over by NBC. Thank God they didn't tape over the tomahawk toss, circa 1965 I believe.

--Brant

"And I didn't even know you were Jewish."

Edited October 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

I haven't read all of Hume, I just read what I read, but in what I read it's pretty damn clear what Hume meant -- although it is less clear (apparently) what is valuable in what he wrote.

I have a novel idea! How about providing some quotations where Hume actually says what you claim he says.

George has chosen to take something I said a certain cock-eyed way and cause a flurry of pointless arguments. I won't pretend to be in his head, but I am starting to think that he is only here to exercise his aging brain cells, and that he thinks the best way to do that is to have pissing contests, and if somebody doesn't seem willing to have one then he just pisses all over them.

As I said before, my interpretations of Hume are quite standard. See, for example, Richard Popkin's article, "David Hume: His Pyrrhonism and His Critique of Pyrrhonism," in Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. V.C. Chappell, Anchor Books, 1966. (Popkin, one of my favorite intellectual historians, is the author of The History of Scepticism: From Erasmus to Spinoza -- one of the most highly regarded books in its field.

Your interpretations, in contrast, include things I have never heard before. We are therefore left with one of two possibilities: Either you are so brilliant that your first and very limited reading of Hume has revealed an original and accurate understanding that has hitherto eluded every Humean scholar; or you don't fully understand what you have read thus far, and therefore need to investigate the subject further before making definitive pronouncements about what Hume really meant.

I vote for the second option.

Ghs

[sjw]

I have a novel idea! How about providing some quotations where Hume actually says what you claim he says.

As I said above I'd be happy to, but first I want to hear what it is you think I'm saying he said, because I'm convinced that you are just misinterpreting me. If so, quoting Hume won't do any good.

I have a novel idea! Why don't you learn to communicate, instead of denunciate?

I vote for the second option.

Yes, well, your motives are becoming clear here.

Shayne

[Selene]

I saw only one of the three Tonight Show appearances. I was also in Tucson. If they have been transcribed they must be preserved if only as audio recordings. Carson was furious when he learned that many of his shows had been taped over by NBC. Thank God they didn't tape over the tomahawk toss, circa 1965 I believe.

--Brant

"And I didn't even know you were Jewish."

Brant:

LOL - this is what made Carson great. He actually let the comedic tension build for at least a minute. He actually reached out and held back the actor, Ed Ames, with his hand. Then as the tension built, he worked the other two (2) tomahawks, I believe and then, with that sheepish mid-western smile, dropped that bombshell line!

Finished with "Welcome to frontier bris!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qqy_N9KaG4

Thanks for the memories Johnny!

Adam

Wondering why Shayne has golden shower issues!

[PDS]

A persistent doom,

Over this thread does loom,

Because SJW assumes,

Certain facts about Hume.

[Brant Gaede]

Nothing on The Tonight Show with Johhny Carson has ever topped that.

--Brant

edit: just found out Ed Ames is Jewish

Edited October 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede