New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Starbuckle]

On the other hand, Harriman's new post is pretty lame. First he starts by announcing that he will "now begin to answer my critics," as if the occasion of a scholar responding to critics deserves some kind of special marking for its momentousness. Second, he zeroes in on that unfortunate word "unconventional" that McCaskey used in his Amazon review of LL to characterize Harriman's approach, while ignoring McCaskey's substantive criticisms. Third, Harriman is so far sidestepping the issue of whether it is appropriate for scholars to try to force critics whose criticisms he dislikes out of an organization with which he too is associated. Was Harriman justified in siccing Peikoff on McCaskey? Even when these guys pretend to be "open," they're closed. There are a few interesting details in the post about how Harriman approached his subject matter, but I don't see any direct response to "my critics."

[sjw]

Is it lame or dishonest? Isn't obvious that Harriman opportunistically and dishonestly latched onto the word "unconventional", attributing a meaning to it that McCaskey clearly did not intend? Not that McCaskey doesn't deserve some criticism for using such a passive-aggressive approach in his review; he should have come right out and said Harriman's approach was wrong, not "unconventional."

Shayne

[Selene]

Is it lame or dishonest? Isn't obvious that Harriman opportunistically and dishonestly latched onto the word "unconventional", attributing a meaning to it that McCaskey clearly did not intend? Not that McCaskey doesn't deserve some criticism for using such a passive-aggressive approach in his review; he should have come right out and said Harriman's approach was wrong, not "unconventional."

Shayne

True, why be diplomatic when you can continue to alienate people with rude and demeaning attacks. Rather than the skillful thrust with the foil, use the broadsword and hope to connect.

[sjw]

Is it lame or dishonest? Isn't obvious that Harriman opportunistically and dishonestly latched onto the word "unconventional", attributing a meaning to it that McCaskey clearly did not intend? Not that McCaskey doesn't deserve some criticism for using such a passive-aggressive approach in his review; he should have come right out and said Harriman's approach was wrong, not "unconventional."

Shayne

True, why be diplomatic when you can continue to alienate people with rude and demeaning attacks. Rather than the skillful thrust with the foil, use the broadsword and hope to connect.

I don't see anything particularly intelligent or skillful in using the word "unconventional" here -- though perhaps my standards are a bit higher than yours. I have to say, it's pretty ironic seeing an Ayn Rand fan advocating passive-aggressive politically-correct watered down speech.

Shayne

[Selene]

Is it lame or dishonest? Isn't obvious that Harriman opportunistically and dishonestly latched onto the word "unconventional", attributing a meaning to it that McCaskey clearly did not intend? Not that McCaskey doesn't deserve some criticism for using such a passive-aggressive approach in his review; he should have come right out and said Harriman's approach was wrong, not "unconventional."

Shayne

True, why be diplomatic when you can continue to alienate people with rude and demeaning attacks. Rather than the skillful thrust with the foil, use the broadsword and hope to connect.

I don't see anything particularly intelligent or skillful in using the word "unconventional" here -- though perhaps my standards are a bit higher than yours. I have to say, it's pretty ironic seeing an Ayn Rand fan advocating passive-aggressive politically-correct watered down speech.

Shayne

Ironic?

How so?

[Starbuckle]

McCaskey shouldn't have uttered the adjective "unconventional" to characterize the historical account of Harriman's book before proceeding to his substantive criticism; but in the Book of Blunders, the lapse is relatively minor. The problem is not that it's so very misleading to anyone who gives a fair reading to McCaskey's comments at Amazon, but that it gives the folks like Harriman something to latch onto as a means of ignoring the rest of what the reviewer said. Which is lame. Very lame. I would even go so far as to call it lame-o.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Starbuckle

[sjw]

McCaskey shouldn't have uttered the adjective "unconventional" to characterize the historical account of Harriman's book before proceeding to his substantive criticism; but in the Book of Blunders, the lapse is relatively minor. The problem is not that it's so very misleading to anyone who gives a fair reading to McCaskey's comments at Amazon, but that it gives the folks like Harriman something to latch onto as a means of ignoring the rest of what the reviewer said. Which is lame. Very lame.

Sure, what McCaskey did was very minor, but he ought not do it, unless he likes his little foible being taken advantage of by the likes of Harriman.

Shayne

[Mike11]

First he starts by announcing that he will "now begin to answer my critics," as if the occasion of a scholar responding to critics deserves some kind of special marking for its momentousness.

For the ARI responding to critics is pretty radical and rare isn't it?

[merjet]

I believe in retrospect McCaskey using "unconventional" was a poor, unfortunate choice of words, probably trying to be too diplomatic. He could have said Harriman's account of Galileo significantly differs from Galileo's own account, which it does. (See pages 43-44 of The Logical Leap and pages 66-72 of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences.)

Harriman says "Imagine that he attempted to drop the lead and oak balls through water instead of air, perhaps thinking that it would be easier to investigate a slower motion. Again, the result would not have lead to any important discovery". No imagining is necessary. Galileo did experiments with both air and water as the medium, and the differences were material to Galileo's conclusions, like McCaskey said. Also, Harriman used "friction", whereas Galileo used "resistance."

Edited November 19, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Robert Campbell]

I suppose it is quite radical for ARIans to answer their critics.

Even more radical for a direct Peikovian protégé to do so.

But—let's see now—David Harriman's work was criticized, in private, by a small number of ARIan insiders in the third week of July, 2010.

By early August, his protector and sponsor, Leonard Peikoff, was militating for John McCaskey's removal from the ARI Board.

On September 3, the aim was accomplished. McCaskey resigned from the ARI and Anthem Foundation Boards.

And Harriman publicizes his supposed reply on November 16?

Even now, he follows a time-honored ARIan practice in not deigning to name his critic. Critic, singular, since any fool will soon enough learn who it's directed at.

Now, I will begin to face my critics. I have been accused of presenting an “unconventional” history of science. Apparently, to depart from convention is a serious crime. How do I plead? Am I guilty or innocent?

In a very important sense, I confess to being innocent. My book does not contain any new discoveries in the history of science. What I say about the discoveries of great scientists can be found in the writings of the scientists themselves or in the writings of the best historians of science (see the references at the end of the book). For example, my account of Galileo’s discoveries relies heavily on the work of Stillman Drake, whom I regard as the best of the Galileo scholars. There was a time when Drake’s view of Galileo was very “unconventional”; most historians regarded Galileo as a Platonist who arrived at conclusions by thought experiments and mathematical deduction, whereas Drake showed that Galileo was a brilliant experimentalist. Scholars such as Drake conduct painstaking investigations to discover previously unknown facts about what scientists actually did. This is not the type of work I do, so I rely on those who do it.

In another sense, however, I am proud to be guilty as charged. My account of the history is unconventional because I have condensed an enormous amount of material in order to reveal the essential logic of the discovery process. For example, starting from more than 2,000 pages of material written by Galileo himself, or by Drake and other historians, I boiled it down to a 20 page section of my book that focuses on the crucial discoveries and the method that led to them. By today’s standards, this is unconventional; any essentialized account is typically dismissed as simplistic. Contemporary academics suffer from a disease that can be characterized as “complexity worship.” As a result, they bury the important points under mountains of trivia. I have tried to sift through the details and clear most of them away—in order to reveal the buried treasures.

I encourage David Harriman to keep making posts like this. The more pompous, misleading rot he puts out, the lower his reputation will sink.

If I'd been in McCaskey's position, I wouldn't have referred to what is conventional and what is not. I'd have gone straight after Harriman's departures from the historical record.

There is a difference between essentializing and "rationally reconstructing"—between presenting the most important or most basic aspects of what really happened, and replacing what really happened with what your preconceived notions say should have happened.

I doubt that Harriman will ever understand the difference. He's been around Leonard Peikoff far too long.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

There is a difference between essentializing and "rationally reconstructing"—between presenting the most important or most basic aspects of what really happened, and replacing what really happened with what your preconceived notions say should have happened.

Yes, very well put.

Shayne

[Starbuckle]

Robert Campbell wrote: "Critic, singular, since any fool will soon enough learn who it's directed at."

Omigod. Did Campbell just call me any fool?? He will never continue to serve on the board after this!!!!

[Starbuckle]

Harriman isn't really "facing my critics" if you count what he's allowing so far into the comments under his post. "Thanks for writing such a wonderful book," etc., is par. My own comment sent a day or two ago bringing up McCaskey didn't pass muster.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Starbuckle

[9thdoctor]

Harriman isn't really "facing my critics" if you count what he's allowing so far into the comments under his post. "Thanks for writing such a wonderful book," etc., is par. My own comment sent a day or two ago bringing up McCaskey didn't pass muster.

There’s a SLOPper who reports the same experience. Maybe we should start a thread, call it Comments for Harriman, where we can all report the posts we make that don’t make the cut. Then, try experimenting with it. By degrees, drain out the criticism and add in the praise, and see at what point the comment gets posted. As it is, Harriman’s site is heaven and he’s God, the choir invisible is singing his praises, and nothing else is going on. Hell has much better company, no matter the rung.

[william.scherk]

The Hsiehs have just published their 'closing thoughts' on The Kerfuffle. It is a marvel of balance-beam gymnastics.

"Now that ARI has explained recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful."

Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

[9thdoctor]

Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

I wonder if they’ve now been un-unpersoned? They sure love Big Brother, at least I’m convinced.

As if this story is going to go away...

[Robert Campbell]

Balance-beam gymnastics, indeed.

Does Diana Hsieh really think that a position at the Objectivist Academic Center is still within reach?

Where Leonard Peikoff comes from, public condemnations are never qualified. Even less often are they revoked.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

The Hsiehs have just published their 'closing thoughts' on The Kerfuffle. It is a marvel of balance-beam gymnastics.

"Now that ARI has explained recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful."

Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

So, what are the answers to the "important but unanswered questions" that the Hsiehs had here?

It appears that the answers are as follows:

What criticisms by McCaskey did Peikoff find unacceptable -- and why?

This is a private matter. Your questions are intrusive and inapproptiate. Mind your own business.

Does Peikoff regard his theory of induction as part of Objectivism -- and, if so, why?

Whether or not Peikoff's theory of induction is a "part of Objectivism" is a private matter and a secret among those of us who have been properly assimilated to think exactly the same thoughts and to support the same positions. You are irrelevant. You will be eliminated.

Do the members of ARI's Board think that Peikoff's e-mail was appropriate in its claims and demands?

We are not the "ARI Board." We are the ARI Borg. Peikoff's thoughts are our thoughts. We are one.

Did Peikoff offer them more detail about his objections to McCaskey's criticisms in prior communications?

McCaskey was not of the body. He has been eliminated.

Why did Peikoff morally condemn McCaskey, as opposed to merely thinking him mistaken? Why didn't Peikoff seek out McCaskey for a discussion of these matters?

Do we have to remind you of who Peikoff is? You will be assimilated.

What is Peikoff's relationship to ARI's Board?

Peikoff and ARI Borg are one and the same. We are him. He is us.

What would it mean for him to "go"? Might Peikoff (or his heirs) issue similar ultimatums in the future? If so, what will the ARI Board do, if it disagrees with the demand?

Peikoff cannot "go." We are Peikoff.

What does ARI regard as the limits of acceptable disagreement -- including the public or private expression thereof -- for people associated with the Institute in various capacities (e.g., as Board members, employees, OAC students, grant recipients, OCON speakers, campus club speakers, etc.)? What is Anthem's view of those limits?

Your questions are futile. You will be absorbed.

What else has happened here that we don't yet know but that might affect our judgments?

Your judgments are irrelevant. You will be made to share our "judgments." Like us, you will become ARI Borg. You will become Peikoff.

J

[Starbuckle]

And they won't even let anybody discuss their bullshit at their site? I'm not surprised and not really dismayed, because I didn't expect better; but I would have preferred to be proved wrong. It's like that last scene with Darth Vader in "Jedi"; of course he could have decided to go with the flow of all his evil impulses and let the emperor destroy Luke, but there was after all that deep-lurking spark of good and self-respect within him to which Luke was able successfully to appeal. Alas, Ms. Hsieh seems to have elected to permanently abandon herself to the Dark Side. "THank you, thank you, thank you so much for explaining that you had not wanted us to even raise the issue of the glaring injustices and irrationality of the McCaskey episode!! What an error on our part for failing to grasp that even trying to grasp was misguided! We still have our disagreements, but...we'll SHUT UP NOW, MASTER!!!!!! Thank you for your guidance and forbearance! We're going to lie supinely on the floor now in the hope and prayer that you will please walk all over us on your way out! Thank you again for condescending to tell us in person to shut the fuck up!"

Diana Hsieh is the same wench who scrawled an irate trillion-word screed whining that Chris Sciabarra was politic enough not to repeat in public every casually expressed negative thought he felt trusting enough to share with a supposed friend in private. Now, here Diana has been publicly humiliated and upbraided by Peikoff and Brook for the "crime" of merely asking questions and making a report of offensively unjust conduct, conduct inexplicable except in terms of socio-pathology and regarding which every non-schmoo ARI donor would want to know the whys and wherefores.

And it turns out...she just didn't know that ARI would be unhappy with her even beginning to show an incipient pretense of independence and spine? Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe that she could not possibly have known. No, she chickened out. Because if this was the denouement she had expected all along, I don't know what her game plan could have been.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Starbuckle

[sjw]

And it turns out...she just didn't know that ARI would be unhappy with her even beginning to show an incipient pretense of independence and spine? Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe that she could not possibly have known. No, she chickened out. Because if this was the denouement she had expected all along, I don't know what her game plan could have been.

Her context could have changed. She met with Brook. He may have made her some kind of deal.

Shayne

[Starbuckle]

I'm surprised to hear this query from Robert Campbell, usually so perspicacious: "Does Diana Hsieh really think that a position at the Objectivist Academic Center is still within reach?"

The assumption of this question has already been proved wrong by an announcement at the OAC blog of a new course, "professor to be announced": "Moral Judgment and Suspension of Moral Judgement When Pragmatically Necessary: The Objective Balancing Act: An Appraisal and Guide for the Aspiring Objective Acolyte."

The announcement of this course is too specifically timed to be anything but a response to the recent controversy and the Hsiehs' withdrawal from the field. And who could be better suited to teach it but the cheerfully chastened DH?

Edited November 21, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Selene]

Well now I am going to have to fight for her honor...

which is more than she ever did!

With all reverence to Sir Groucho Marx

[kiaer.ts]

And it turns out...she just didn't know that ARI would be unhappy with her even beginning to show an incipient pretense of independence and spine? Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe that she could not possibly have known. No, she chickened out. Because if this was the denouement she had expected all along, I don't know what her game plan could have been.

Her context could have changed. She met with Brook. He may have made her some kind of deal.

Shayne

Bah! She is entirely beholden to them. The "deal" is that they will continue to let her continue to let them tell her when to call black white and white black and like it.

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

I very much doubt that Yaron Brook offered Diana Hsieh any kind of deal.

More likely, he threatened her with prompt expulsion from ARI unless she got with the program.

Robert Campbell

[william.scherk]

I note that a post eerily similar to Starbuckle's "bullshit" note appeared in a thread of open commentary at Noodlefood.

It lasted some 30 minutes before Lady Banhammer noticed.

On the subject of Harriman's "I pee on a free-floating mattress of straw named 'critics'" at his not-quite-a-blog, he has added more material.

What is marked in Harriman's effort there is the blithe no-naming and no-citing of said critics. As an intellectual product, it reeks of the third-rate. That he is a princess deemed infallible by Peikoff makes him secure enough to be smug. Harriman's arrogance is complete . . . it is as if McCaskey no longer exists and so need not be named.

How sad for Objectivism that challengers are deposed rather than debated. The dissenters are silent and so Long Live The Party.

As for the Hsiehs, perhaps a flurry of ironic condolences are in order in the open comment threads. Their little bad person bums must be smarting right now.