New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Ellen Stuttle]

Is a smiley face really necessary here?

It's a "rolleyes," George -- like, bats in the belfry, who can keep track?, in this case of by whom I'm being accused of what. Not all smiley faces are "smiles."

Ellen

[Jerry Biggers]

During my brief sojourn on SOLOP some years ago, I sometimes referred to Perigo as "Lint." Was this acceptable?

If memory serves, George, you also told Mr. Perigo that he had a "room temperature IQ."

Robert Campbell

RE: Perigo and room temperature IQ:

It makes a substantial difference whether that reference was expressed using Farenheit or Celsius.

And isn't New Zealand on the metric system?

[George H. Smith]

Is a smiley face really necessary here?

It's a "rolleyes," George -- like, bats in the belfry, who can keep track?, in this case of by whom I'm being accused of what. Not all smiley faces are "smiles."

Ellen

I meant it as a joke. I knew I shouldn't have posted it.

Ghs

[sjw]

You may recall the O J Simpson trial. I had not read OPAR when it was in progress. I screamed at the screen in disgust that the judge was allowing the defense to make arbitrary assertions that the evidence could have been tampered with or that there could have been some Colombian drug dealers involved without presenting any evidence to support their claims. There is no other way to criticize such claims except as arbitrary. Ito's allowing them was a miscarriage of justice and a betrayal of centuries of proper jurisprudence. Nothing is a more dramatic proof of the abomination of allowing such claims entrance in the realm of thought.

The onus of proof principle predates Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary by many centuries. And it doesn't require anything like a doctrine of the arbitrary, either to explicate it or shore it up. It is simply one of many ingredients in Peikoff's big dirty snowball—or, if you prefer Randian language, his package-deal.

Robert Campbell

True, but what's wrong with defining "arbitrary" in such a manner? That's how I've understood and used that word. I simply mean by "arbitrary" a statement that has not been proven but needs to be in order to be admitted.

Shayne

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz."

That assertion is another of your inventions.

PS. Ms. Stuttle hasn't been hanging around SOLOP for a while now. Why not?

Robert, I'll answer although it isn't any business of yours. Because nothing of interest to me has been going on there, or at least not that I've noticed. I have limited computer-reading time. I've barely been glancing at SOLO more than every now and then for several months, ever since the disputes with Rosie and Richard Goode began to dominate, and the only thread I've read in the last couple months was the one Fred Seddon started about the Harriman book. I haven't even been tracking Marcus' global warming thread.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

During my brief sojourn on SOLOP some years ago, I sometimes referred to Perigo as "Lint." Was this acceptable?

If memory serves, George, you also told Mr. Perigo that he had a "room temperature IQ."

Robert Campbell

RE: Perigo and room temperature IQ:

It makes a substantial difference whether that reference was expressed using Farenheit or Celsius.

And isn't New Zealand on the metric system?

Neither can be construed as a compliment. Room temperature Celsius would make my dog more intelligent than Perigo.

Just so everyone else knows that I know: I know this is a setup line. The rim shot will follow....

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

I'll answer although it isn't any business of yours.

Oh, yeah.

When that clause is attached, one may be sure that Ms. Stuttle's answer will be purposely uninformative, when not purposely misleading.

Ms. Stuttle, whose activity on SOLO's global warming threads had long been fitful, failed to sustain the ego boost she anticipated from being recognized as Valliant's latter-day defender and seeing several of his and her adversaries kicked off the site. Instead, Valliant quietly departed and Perigo's decay is now visible to all.

There would, alas, be no further opportunities to announce that Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude were making her blush.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

I have read much of your criticisms of the doctrine. I usually simply let the statements pass without comment. Yes, I have read OPAR, but I inscribed the subtitle "Rand's Last Laugh" on it and gave it to a friend who said he wanted it, so I cannot refer to it directly. Any disagreements I had with Peikoff's presentation of the essential ideas were quibbles.

Ted,

You may want to get another copy of Peikoff's opus. At least unless your "quibbles" included pointing out the ways in which Peikoff was contradicting himself.

As for Goedel, his "proof" requires one to treat the sentence "this sentence is false" as a claim with import. I categorically deny that it has import.

Do you know what Gödel's theorem was actually about? Or how his proof of it proceeded?

Also, are you familiar with Peikoff's statements regarding the theorem? (One of them is published in The Ominous Parallels.) What does Peikoff appear to believe that the therorem is about?

You may recall the O J Simpson trial. I had not read OPAR when it was in progress. I screamed at the screen in disgust that the judge was allowing the defense to make arbitrary assertions that the evidence could have been tampered with or that there could have been some Colombian drug dealers involved without presenting any evidence to support their claims. There is no other way to criticize such claims except as arbitrary. Ito's allowing them was a miscarriage of justice and a betrayal of centuries of proper jurisprudence. Nothing is a more dramatic proof of the abomination of allowing such claims entrance in the realm of thought.

The onus of proof principle predates Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary by many centuries. And it doesn't require anything like a doctrine of the arbitrary, either to explicate it or shore it up. It is simply one of many ingredients in Peikoff's big dirty snowball—or, if you prefer Randian language, his package-deal.

Robert Campbell

My reading of Peikoff was generous. I agree with him totally in principle. I do remember commenting to myself that I would not have worded things the same way he did, just as I would not have said that one cannot see an organism walking down the street in his discussion of conceptual hierarchy and perceptual level abstractions versus abstractions from abstractions.

As for Goedel, I read Goedel Escher Bach when it was prominent on the shelves and had no problem following its arguments. Assuming its exegesis was accurate (I have never read any other summary since that implies otherwise) Goedel used a numbering system to assign numbers to propositions and showed that one can produce a numbered proposition which declares its own falsehood by number. The exact same criticisms I made above apply. Calling things "this" or naming them by numbers is an inherently intentional process, it requires the judgment of an individual mind which assigns meaning. The numbers in themselves instantiate nothing, no more so that wind blowing A=~A in the sand. The same criticism applies that propositions have truth values only in relation to what they are about. And that "this is a false sentence" is elliptical, with an implied argument, and when made explicit, must be "this sentence about X is false." The question then becomes "this sentence about what is false?", and then you get trapped in an infinite regress of nested "abouts". All that Goedel proves is that if a person tries to make sense out of a proposition with an implied argument that leads to an infinite regress, without making the implied argument explicit and rejecting it, that he will end up asserting a contradiction as if it were true. This is not a proof about math or logic "in itself," it is a proof that people are fallible.

[Neil Parille]

I see Valliant is still writing crap implying that PARC has been some great success. In July he wrote:

At one time, Mr. H.'s intellectual leader, David Kelley said that he was nothing short of "shocked" at "the refusal" to discuss "the issues raised by Ms. Branden's book." With Peikoff's support, my book discusses these issues. But, now, any attempt to discuss those issues is an "obsession" -- and one concerned only with the personalities of the Brandens.

How quickly these fork-tongued pragmatists change their tunes!

In recent years, TAS has found that the Blumenthals left them when they embraced Branden. They have seen numerous speakers and scholars (even a director) end their association with their organization for a wide variety of reasons, all of them also evaded here by Mr. Hudgins -- and each of them now friends of me and with PARC.

Just who -- other than perhaps Bill Perry -- left TAS and are now friends of Valliant and PARC?

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

> a good fraction of Objectivists, many of whom are just useful intellectual idiots for the regime. [shayne]

> Well, Shayne, I think you should use one less space between your name and your post [brant]

> And only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz." [Robert]

> You know more about physics than any other housewife I have ever known. [George]

> these fork-tongued pragmatists [Jim V]

> Are you telling me that Peikoff is not autistic? [Ted]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Since 2000, several others have departed TAS for ARIan quarters: for instance, Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Greg Perkins, Michelle Fram-Cohen, and Greg Perkins.

Diana Hsieh was preparing her departure, and loudly announced it, before PARC was published. She once praised PARC but is now quiet about it. To my knowledge, none of the others have either credited Valliant's book for their change of allegiance or are inclined to promote the book in 2010.

Robert Campbell

PS. Allan and Joan Mitchell Blumenthal left TAS 14 years ago. So did Murray Franck. In all three cases, they were reacting to Nathaniel Branden being invited to speak at the 1996 Summer Seminar. None of them have endorsed Mr. Valliant's opus.

[Selene]

All right all of you have to stay after class and be disciplined by Phillip:

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

Perhaps Valliant could answer a couple questions:

1. Who, other than Leonard Peikoff, knew Rand well and has praised PARC?

2. How come ARIan reviewers who have commented on the new biographies (such as Binswanger and Mayhew) have failed to mention PARC?

I'm not holding my breath.

-Neil Parille

[George H. Smith]

> a good fraction of Objectivists, many of whom are just useful intellectual idiots for the regime. [shayne]

> Well, Shayne, I think you should use one less space between your name and your post [brant]

> And only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz." [Robert]

> You know more about physics than any other housewife I have ever known. [George]

> these fork-tongued pragmatists [Jim V]

> Are you telling me that Peikoff is not autistic? [Ted]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

No. I'm twelve and a half.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

And only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz."

Robert Campbell

Oops!

(Somebody calling himself "Brant" did that.)

I'm going to say 53 "Hail Ayns" to put this behind me.

--Brant

suddenly a Catholic

[kiaer.ts]

> a good fraction of Objectivists, many of whom are just useful intellectual idiots for the regime. [shayne]

> Well, Shayne, I think you should use one less space between your name and your post [brant]

> And only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz." [Robert]

> You know more about physics than any other housewife I have ever known. [George]

> these fork-tongued pragmatists [Jim V]

> Are you telling me that Peikoff is not autistic? [Ted]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

No. I'm twelve and a half.

Ghs

That was a math question, George. Shayne, Brant, Robert, George, Jim and Ted make six, not twelve. But Jim isn't actually here, is he? So it's a trick question and the answer is five.

Neill, isn't there already a relevant thread for discussing Valiant? I think the PACR is out of Print one was the most recent.

I take it, Phil, that, like Bob, you were unable to tell that I was joking about Peikoff? That's the second time. Is it possible you too may be an assburger?

[George H. Smith]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

No. I'm twelve and a half.

Ghs

That was a math question, George. Shayne, Brant, Robert, George, Jim and Ted make six, not twelve. But Jim isn't actually here, is he? So it's a trick question and the answer is five.

Okay, but one thing is clear: No fruit cup for us.

Phil is so strict.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

No. I'm twelve and a half.

Ghs

During my brief sojourn on SOLOP some years ago, I sometimes referred to Perigo as "Lint." Was this acceptable?

If memory serves, George, you also told Mr. Perigo that he had a "room temperature IQ."

Robert Campbell

RE: Perigo and room temperature IQ:

It makes a substantial difference whether that reference was expressed using Farenheit or Celsius.

And isn't New Zealand on the metric system?

Neither can be construed as a compliment. Room temperature Celsius would make my dog more intelligent than Perigo.

Just so everyone else knows that I know: I know this is a setup line. The rim shot will follow....

Ghs

That was a math question, George. Shayne, Brant, Robert, George, Jim and Ted make six, not twelve. But Jim isn't actually here, is he? So it's a trick question and the answer is five.

Okay, but one thing is clear: No fruit cup for us.

Phil is so strict.

Ghs

No. I'm twelve and a half.

Ghs

During my brief sojourn on SOLOP some years ago, I sometimes referred to Perigo as "Lint." Was this acceptable?

If memory serves, George, you also told Mr. Perigo that he had a "room temperature IQ."

Robert Campbell

RE: Perigo and room temperature IQ:

It makes a substantial difference whether that reference was expressed using Farenheit or Celsius.

And isn't New Zealand on the metric system?

Neither can be construed as a compliment. Room temperature Celsius would make my dog more intelligent than Perigo.

Just so everyone else knows that I know: I know this is a setup line. The rim shot will follow....

Ghs

That was a math question, George. Shayne, Brant, Robert, George, Jim and Ted make six, not twelve. But Jim isn't actually here, is he? So it's a trick question and the answer is five.

Okay, but one thing is clear: No fruit cup for us.

Phil is so strict.

Ghs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBx8JNarOlg

Edited September 12, 2010 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

Ted,

If I didn't know better, I might think you were deliberately trying to annoy Phil.

I couldn't find the "fruit cup" clip either, at least not without posting a big chunk of the movie.

But I did find this.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Moi?

[sjw]

> a good fraction of Objectivists, many of whom are just useful intellectual idiots for the regime. [shayne]

> Well, Shayne, I think you should use one less space between your name and your post [brant]

> And only those who are tight with Mr. Perigo, or kissing up to him, ever refer to him as "Linz." [Robert]

> You know more about physics than any other housewife I have ever known. [George]

> these fork-tongued pragmatists [Jim V]

> Are you telling me that Peikoff is not autistic? [Ted]

. . . What are you guys, twelve?

I just got why everyone teases you about being a nanny.

Shayne

--Yeah, I'm slow. Hoping Brant doesn't sue me for trademark infringement.

[kiaer.ts]

I have read much of your criticisms of the doctrine. I usually simply let the statements pass without comment. Yes, I have read OPAR, but I inscribed the subtitle "Rand's Last Laugh" on it and gave it to a friend who said he wanted it, so I cannot refer to it directly. Any disagreements I had with Peikoff's presentation of the essential ideas were quibbles.

Ted,

You may want to get another copy of Peikoff's opus. At least unless your "quibbles" included pointing out the ways in which Peikoff was contradicting himself.

As for Goedel, his "proof" requires one to treat the sentence "this sentence is false" as a claim with import. I categorically deny that it has import.

Do you know what Gödel's theorem was actually about? Or how his proof of it proceeded?

Also, are you familiar with Peikoff's statements regarding the theorem? (One of them is published in The Ominous Parallels.) What does Peikoff appear to believe that the therorem is about?

You may recall the O J Simpson trial. I had not read OPAR when it was in progress. I screamed at the screen in disgust that the judge was allowing the defense to make arbitrary assertions that the evidence could have been tampered with or that there could have been some Colombian drug dealers involved without presenting any evidence to support their claims. There is no other way to criticize such claims except as arbitrary. Ito's allowing them was a miscarriage of justice and a betrayal of centuries of proper jurisprudence. Nothing is a more dramatic proof of the abomination of allowing such claims entrance in the realm of thought.

The onus of proof principle predates Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary by many centuries. And it doesn't require anything like a doctrine of the arbitrary, either to explicate it or shore it up. It is simply one of many ingredients in Peikoff's big dirty snowball—or, if you prefer Randian language, his package-deal.

Robert Campbell

My reading of Peikoff was generous. I agree with him totally in principle. I do remember commenting to myself that I would not have worded things the same way he did, just as I would not have said that one cannot see an organism walking down the street in his discussion of conceptual hierarchy and perceptual level abstractions versus abstractions from abstractions.

As for Goedel, I read Goedel Escher Bach when it was prominent on the shelves and had no problem following its arguments. Assuming its exegesis was accurate (I have never read any other summary since that implies otherwise) Goedel used a numbering system to assign numbers to propositions [in an axiomatic system powerful enough to encode all true mathematical statements] and showed that one can produce a numbered proposition which declares its own falsehood by number. The exact same criticisms I made above apply. Calling things "this" or naming them by numbers is an inherently intentional process, it requires the judgment of an individual mind which assigns meaning. The numbers in themselves instantiate nothing, no more so that wind blowing A=~A in the sand. The same criticism applies that propositions have truth values only in relation to what they are about. And that "this is a false sentence" is elliptical, with an implied argument, and when made explicit, must be "this sentence about X is false." The question then becomes "this sentence about what is false?", and then you get trapped in an infinite regress of nested "abouts". All that Goedel proves is that if a person tries to make sense out of a proposition with an implied argument that leads to an infinite regress, without making the implied argument explicit and rejecting it, that he will end up asserting a contradiction as if it were true. This is not a proof about math or logic "in itself," it is a proof that people are fallible.

Given the lack of comment, can I assume I pass muster on understanding Goedel?

Can you explain what you mean by the honus of proof principle, Robert?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

> I take it, Phil, that, like Bob, you were unable to tell that I was joking about Peikoff? That's the second time. Is it possible you too may be an assburger?

Ted, I'm afraid I don't know what an assburger is. I may have to ask Cloris Leachman.

George, I'm afraid you will have to stay after class. Adam was at least clever enough to come up with a photo of a schoolmarm, not a strict nurse. My image here is of a schoolmarm, not a medical professional (or proctologist or sphincter analyst).

(Try to keep up.)

[Philip Coates]

> the honus of proof principle

Ted, the honus of proof is when you keep honing your proof until you get it right.

[mfgreaves]

Many useful (and later empirically grounded) ideas in physics started off life as connotative concepts rather than denoting concepts. For example, the neutrino.

Robert,

Very nice post. A pleasure to read and think about.

Mike