Mike Renzulli

Wikipedia founder and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales recently expressed an interest in running as a Republcian for Florida's U.S. Senate seat.

A campaign to draft him to run is underway: http://draftjimmywales.wordpress.com/

Alright I will remember that next time. Thanks!

No the last statement by me was the sentence before the highlighted title of the review. The section that is all slanted is/are Mcginnis's comments. I will use quotation marks in the future.

You might learn how to use quotation marks, Mike, or quotation differentation. Was the last paragraph yours? The last two? Three?

--Brant

In this case I wouldn't use quotation marks as they'd be too cumbersome. I'd just indicate in the text that all the following material was a quotation. Another way would be changing the font size, making your stuff slightly bigger. You could have also ran a solid ( ________________ ) separating line. I don't think it's practical to indent the quoted material here on OL and maybe not possible, which is standard in texts. Your use of bold face and italics was also somewhat confusing. It was too extensive and we aren't sure who put them in, you or the other guy. Those things are done for emphasis, not to confuse or distract.

--Brant

I agree, Merlin and your reply says what I wanted or neglected to say. As my initial post may indicate the main focus of my posting the review was the part of Mcginnis's review which I highlighted in bold black letters.

The pot calls the kettle black. Mcginnis slams Harriman for making sweeping claims about philosophy of science by citing exactly one philosopher, Feyerabend, and ignoring other philosophers. Yet Mcginnis makes sweeping claims about the book based on one tiny part of it and ignores the rest of it.

No the last statement by me was the sentence before the highlighted title of the review. The section that is all slanted is/are Mcginnis's comments. I will use quotation marks in the future.

You might learn how to use quotation marks, Mike, or quotation differentation. Was the last paragraph yours? The last two? Three?

--Brant

I found this review on Amazon.com and thought I would post it. The author lists some scientists/philosophers who may have already covered the territory David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff are covering years before The Logical Leap was published.

If this is the case, good for the scientists/philosophers Mcginnis lists but it might be too little too late for ARI.

Objectivism is not 'philosophy.' Full stop., January 11, 2011

By Nicolas Mcginnis

This review is from: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics (Paperback)

Harriman writes: 'In my physics lab course, I learned how to determine the atomic structure of crystals by means of x-ray diffraction and how to identify subatomic particles by analyzing bubble-chamber photographs. In my philosophy of science course, on the other hand, I was taught by a world-renowned professor (Paul Feyerabend) that there is no such thing as scientific method and that physicists have no better claim to knowledge than voodoo priests. I knew little about epistemology [the philosophy of knowledge] at the time, but I could not help noticing that it was the physicists, not the voodoo priests, who had made possible the life-promoting technology we enjoy today.'

This is enough to know this book is a hack piece of garbage that should not be tossed aside lightly; it should be thrown, with great force.

The only evidence I need is that the author makes sweeping claims about philosophy of science by citing exactly one philosopher, Feyerabend. If the author, either of the review or the book, were serious, they would engage with the field as a whole. They would also know that philosophy of science, as practiced in analytic departments, has taken a strong stand against post-modern relativism and has able, articulate and competent writers with scientific backgrounds: Bas van Fraasen, Hilary Putnam, Nelson Goodman, Philip Kitcher, Harvey Brown, Eliot Sober, Nancy Cartwright, Patrick Suppes... I could go on.

The author would know, as well, that Putnam made the very same argument against Feyerabend over 40 years ago: namely, that if scientific methodology does not track truth, then we have no way of explaining technological applications. This ignorance betrays a fundamental ignorance of the literature in philosophy of science.

There are real issues in philosophy: questions about deductive and inductive logic, Bayesian confirmation, biomedical ethics, clinical trial structure, physical interpretation, but of course our authors prefer to dwell the disputed (and here, unsurprisingly, mischaracterized) claims of a single figure. A contrarian figure that, if anything, stands opposed to the mainstream consensus in philosophy of science, positivistic (e.g., the Vienna Circle, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick, and so on) and post-positivistic: that science works, works best, and likely describes real, knowable entities.

It's plenty clear both authors don't have a clue what they are talking about. That Ayn Rand is brought up only underscores this. I suggest no one wastes their time on this obvious trash. If you want good, relevant, interesting philosophy of science, any of the above-mentioned authors would do fine.

Thanks, Adam and everyone else on this thread that has wished me well.

Mike:

God speed...

May the force be with you...

Good luck.

Adam

I thought you all might like to know that I sent the forms to give RMI 501©3 status to the IRS today. I expect within the next few months we will obtain it. Once we do I would like for us to be able to raise money in order to hold a conference in Phoenix. I will keep you all informed.

At best I tend to be unconventional in terms of quoting responses of my posts due to the fact of the confusion I, and I am sure many others, on these boards experience when following along a conversation.

However, I do not usually respond to insults yet your having done so after I have calmly replied and outlined my objections/thoughts to your statements. Consequently, I would not assume you were a pacifist or anything you were not unless I had specifically said so.

I usually do not accuse unless it is in the context of arguing only for the purposes of goading my opponent to expand upon their accusations against me and in hopes of pointing out the fallacies of their irrational conclusions.

Suffice it to say, I reject neo-conservativism and (despite your accusation) at face value the Objectivist view on foreign policy may seem similar to what neo-conservatives call for but, in reality, is not.

If you knew anything about Objectivist philosophy you would know that Objectivists not only reject neo-conservatism as a philosophy but also do not subscribe to the neo-conservative view that war is a means to the end of giving life meaning, fomenting bravery and patriotism.

As far as Objectivism itself is concerned with regards to war, I would refer you to William Thomas's essay on the matter found here: http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/war-objectivist-view

and Thomas's essay on Pre-emptive Strikes and Iraq: http://www.atlassociety.org/pre-emptive-strikes-and-iraq

The movie in and of itself is highly informative and (I think) factually driven despite what might be an element of hype. Yet the makers of the film obviously have to balance the presenting facts to make their case while keeping the audience's interest.

Is there anything one can do to get you to adopt the normal convention at OL to write below what you're quoting? This reverse-methodology is quite annoying.

Anyways, I'm not a pacifist so your remarks are quite misguided. In simple terms all I was calling for was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and objecting to the video on the grounds that it is propaganda. I never said we shouldn't deal with objective threats, on the contrary I supported the idea of taking away nukes from unstable regimes. One problem with your propaganda-driven approach is that it's hard for honest people to discern what's really an objective threat and what's just dishonest drivel.

Shayne

It is not hypocritical to attack a dictatorship, in this case Iran, that has openly said it is at war with the United States (whom they call The Great Satan) and has used the revenues generated from its oil sales to support terrorist groups and activities directed at the United States.

I admit blowing up the theocrats in charge wouldn't convince them they are wrong but it certainly would be the best act of justice that can be exacted not only for the people of the country we liberate but for the people of the United States who would no longer have to fear a terrorist attack in the U.S. or abroad.

Simultaneously taking out the Iranian dictatorship would send a message to other dictators and terrorst groups the Iranians supported they could be next.

You cannot convince people who are irrational and subscribe to a apocalyptic theology who view present day events as an indication of the end times and want to conduct nuclear annihilation in hopes that it will contribute to the retrun of the Tewlfth Imam which is a prophecy told in Shia Islam.

If you remember during the Cold War that there was this fear about a psychopath having the ability to press the Red Button in order to set off World War III? Iran is a real life example of this very fear that was expressed at that time.

Don't believe this is the case? Watch the movie and see the interviews from experts (like Bernard Lewis) who explain this.

I am getting the impression that you are not aware of or will not consciously admit the danger of the threat the U.S. faces. Not just from Iran but other dictatorships (like Venezuela and North Korea). I admit we cannot take them all out but we can render them useless or marginalize them. In the case of Iran that is the country that poses the largest threat and deserves to be taken out first.

I think you don't spread liberty through hypocrisy. Nor can you force people to want liberty. Many in Iran like theocracy. Even if they are in the majority, does that make what they are doing legitimate? No. But if you blow many of them up that isn't going to convince them that they're wrong, on the contrary, they will have good reason to think that you're wrong, because in fact, you are.

Where you should invest your energy Mike is in actually trying to make the US be a free country. Then it would be easy to convince Iran to be free. Here's how: show them that liberty works, help people who actually want it escape to the US. And that would be the end of that. Iran would either collapse or evolve. But your method is the opposite: defend the hypocritical US in any and all actions abroad, bomb people without actually making a rational case that doing so is just, and if they take your actions as acts of war, call them "terrorists." Your methods put them into a stance where they are guaranteed not to evolve.

Shayne

BINGO, Ted! You nailed it right on the head!

The actions or mistakes of present policy makers share no blame or guilt for mistakes of the past. Though I do not think that installing the Shah was a mistake, according to Shayne's logic he seems to allude that very point based on the issue you raise in your question.

Regardless of how one feels about the 1953 or any other coup conducted by the U.S., foreign policy mistakes of the past should not be a distraction from defending ourselves when there is a clear and present danger in our midst. In this case, it is the Iranian regime.

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I'm no expert on history but I know when I'm getting a biased account.

Shayne

So your premise is that because the people who were in power in 1953, and are now long dead, did something bad, that, out of shame and guilt for the actions of these dead men, we who are alive now and innocent of those acts should not defend ourself from the current murderous religious dictatorship?

Okay well then that clears it up. However, I will bring up one other point.

Since you agree that people would not consent to dictatorships and it is historically and evidently true that totalitarian states will support movements or groups who will commit acts of violence abroad in order to spread said totalitarian state's ideology would you agree that it makes sense that free countries that neighbor it or subject to said dictatorship's affiliate group attacks should take the host country committed to spreading communism, Islamism or fascism out by clandestine or military force if necessary?

No. And nowhere in this thread did I ever imply any such absurdity. You are the one bringing in absurdity, and then wondering why everything appears absurd from your twisted viewpoint.

Shayne

So am I understanding you correctly that you think that people consent to live in dictatorships?

Consent is the only proper principle. What you do once all parties consent is up to the consenting parties.

So am I understanding you correctly that you think that people consent to live in dictatorships?

Consent is the only proper principle. What you do once all parties consent is up to the consenting parties.

I thought I did in my previous posts. Then I will attempt to again and this will be my final post on this matter.

The reason why it was relevant or proper to kick out Mossadegh was that with him in charge Iran could have ended up going the way of Cuba by eventually becoming a communist state. Especially since he had the strong backing of Iran's Stalinist-leaning Tudeh party in the Iranian parliament.

I think and the C.I.A. concluded that, like Fidel Castro, Mossadegh was a communist at heart. He would not openly admit it.

States based on collectivist ideologies that become or are dictatorships are a threat to civilized countries since most times will not only commit humanitarian crimes internally but will also export their ideology. By and large dictatorships or totalitarian states support groups or individuals that achieve their revolutionary goals like what was seen with the U.S.S.R. with its support of communistic movements and Iran with its support of terrorism.

This goes back to my point that there is no right to enslave and that the people of Iran would not consent to a communist or Islamist state anymore than the people of Italy would consent to a fascist one.

Your first mistake is not actually addressing the point, namely, whether it is not in fact relevant to the current state of affairs that we overthrew their democratically elected leader. Your second mistake is presuming to be able to see the logic behind my point.

Shayne

The U.S. and U.S.S.R. mutually agreed to a state of detente between the 2 countries. This I believe means that neither country would directly attack the other and verify in times of hostility in order to avert a nuclear exchange.

However, this did not mean they would stop the cat and mouse game when it came to foreign affairs. Including when it came to the U.S.S.R. seeking sattelite colonies in and outside of its region of control such as its support of left-wing movements (politicial or violent) in Latin America.

The U.S. would kick out people or governments friendly to the U.S.S.R. (like seen in Iran, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala) and install ones not only friendly to the U.S. but also embraced semblances of capitalism such as seen in the case of the Shah but also Augusto Pinochet and Alberto Fujimori.

Regime changes were (rightly) done by the U.S. to stamp out the spread of communism and, by and large, fortunately such actions were successful since they avoided direct military conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union since doing so could lead to a nuclear exchange which neither side wanted.

Free countries (like the U.S.) have the right (though not an obligation) to conduct acts of aggression against dictatorships since they are based not only on the complete destruction of the individual but also rule by fear, intimidation and force. Ms. Rand said it best that a country guilty of the outrages specific to a dictatorship forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R.

What does "technically being at war" mean here?

--Brant

Yes and my coup strategy was also welcomed by many Iranians so what's your point? You notice the Shah remained in power for some twenty years before there was another revolt. Even still, I think the revolts that took place in the seventies were the result of communist and Islamist influences in which they got the revolution right that time.

You will also note in the movie that once the Islamists took power in Iran they killed all of the people associated with the Shah in and outside of Iran. I am sure they also executed many of the people who helped them too such as the communists and secularists who helped with the protests against the Shah.

In terms of Mossadegh being democratically elected, I would advise caution on your part when making an assertion such as this. My family grew up in Italy when Benito Mussolini was dictator.

Mussolini was democratically elected at first like Mossadegh was and then consolodated his power just like Hitler did in Germany. I am sure Mossadegh if given time might do the same thing. No one would elect to have themselves enslaved either by fascists or communists.

Simultaneously there is no right to enslave individuals which, as I am sure you are aware, the destruction of individuality is the central tenet of fascism and communism.

You do not strike me as such as person who would prefer people to live under the iron-fist of collectivism yet the logic behind your point will lead to such a result.

It's obvious why it's not relevant that the US overthrew a democratically chosen ruler? I.e., the ruler that the majority of Iranians wanted? You don't think that's going to piss a lot of people off?

The reason why the movie didn't go into the Shah being installed over Mossadegh was that the event obviously had/have no relevance.

The U.S. took up the task of staging the coup as the result of a request by the British for the U.S. to do so. Obviously there was a fear or some sort of intel that the Soviets were assisting Mossadegh. The U.S. had a right to kick out Mossadegh and put in the Shah because the end result would have been a communist state for the Iranians also friendly to the Shi'ite Islamists who also hated the Shah.

The 1953 coup was in the context of the U.S. technically being at war with the U.S.S.R. Therefore it was legitimate for the U.S. to install the Shah.

Dictatorships (especially communist ones) are outlaws and have no rights. When Mossadegh was in power and made the moves that he did to enact communist economic policies (like nationalizing the Iranian oil fields) which would have confiscated the British company who was refining and extracting the oil at the time, all bets were off and it was legit for the C.I.A.to kick him and the communists out via the coup.

It does not identify all of the factors creating this intent. Importantly, it does not even mention how the US helped to overthrow a democratically-elected leader of Iran to install and support a dictator. Now, if Iran had done that to the US, do you think we might have some kind of lasting hatred toward Iran

The U.S.'s actions during that time were completely justified.

I think that the rumblings on the part of the opposition to the Shah were the result of actions mainly by the U.S.S.R. hoping to have an ally on its southern border. Technicaly the U.S. was at war (albeit "cold") with the U.S.S.R. in which it was the Soviets supporting overthrowing the Shah and supporting Mossadegh and the people allied with him.

As near as I have been able to figure out the Islamists also wanted the Shah out because of the secularism and capitalism he embraced. Fortunately, the U.S. halted both side's advance by reinstating him.

He was one of our best allies in that region at the time and that anti-Semitic bastard Jimmy Carter withdrew his support naively thinking that Khomeini and his cohorts would be better for the country.

I watched enough of it to tell that it's misleading at best, as they don't provide the full context for the source of anti-Americanism. E.g., they leave this important bit out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I'm no expert on history but I know when I'm getting a biased account.

Shayne

Of course, Phil. "Iranium" documents the Iranian nuclear program that the regime is pursuing and the threat it poses not only for the U.S. but also for the middle east as well. It also discusses U.S. foreign policy with regards to the country and how Presidents since Jimmy Carter have misunderstood the intent of the Iranian regime.

If there was a film that clearly documents a country that has openly been at war with the U.S. and has taken measures to fulfill it's threats I don't know what does. You will see not only the threat that Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology poses to the rest of the world but also the deception on the part of Iranian theocrats and the regimes support of terrorist groups like Hamas as well as al-Quaeda terrorists who flew jet airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

None of the actions of the part of the regime were the result of backlash from U.S. foreign policy but, as the film clearly demonstrates, the apocalyptic vision Iranian theocrats (like Mahmoud Ahmedinajad) subscribe to. The most frightening thing is that Iranian regime isn't deterred by mutual assured destruction (MAD), it is what they are hoping for.

Mike, please tell us what it is about and summarize the case it makes before the boobirds pounce instantly. Otherwise your post is swamped instantly with the opposed view.

My Objectivist club showed this film on Thursday. As it turns out you can watch "Iranium" for free on Hulu. See this movie, friends. After doing so you will better understand why we have to go to war with Iran.

The Wall Street Journal has published a good article about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703905404576164293594303936.html

"After two years in office, [Daniels] had an approval rating of just 37%, tied with President Bush. In 2006, his party lost control of the Indiana House.

"It was humbling," Mr. Daniels says. "But I tell you this, we never took a poll to determine what we were for." "

As some of you may know Arizona Senator Jon Kyl recently announced he will be retiring from the U.S. Senate. Even when I was a Libertarian I corresponded frequently with Senator Kyl in which he frequently replied to my letters to him about issues of concern and for that I respected him.

As a result of Kyl stepping down, Rep. Jeff Flake has jumped with both feet into the race. Flake is from a family with deep roots in the state and was Executive Director of the Goldwater Institute before getting elected to the U.S. House.

He is one of the most libertarian members of Congress and I will be proud to support him.

His website is http://jeffflake.com

I listened to this speech too and liked what I heard as well. I also like Mitch Daniels' record as Governor. While the Cato Institute rated Pawlenty as having a better fiscal record I appreciate the fact that he is still rated fairly high.

Daniels has called for a truce on social issues on the right (link to Weekly Standard column describing this below) and isn't backing down from asserting it despite the scolding of snake oil salesman Mike Huckabee.

Good for him.

Mitch Daniels is high on my list of contenders for the White House.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-mitch-danielss-truce-social-issues

Phil,

Thanks for your feedback. In the interim our focus will be on conducting seminars or lectures. We will start off small but if we grow (which I and the other board members will be working very hard to ensure) I would be open to doing what you describe below. The details will, of course, have to be worked out.

First we have to begin the process of building the organization and I would like to build it to include what you describe. In response to Mark's comments it isn't so much appealing to people like Robert Tracinski as much as it is about being able to rebuild what, in my view, has been lost in the past few years in terms of the scholarship and activism that came out of IOS/TAS.

I don't want RMI to become a clone of either ARI or TAS yet both groups conduct activities that I think are very good and can be used to help revive an independent Objectivist movement. I think it needs a good, active, well-funded organization with dedicated people that can help provide resources in order to make this happen.

PS, Two areas where I see a gap in the work of ARI and TAS:

1. Do you have any detailed plan, for example, to fill the need (or provide support) for Objectivists to do creative work or write more on topics -other- than current political and economic events?

2. What about -educating and developing- those who might become fully Objectivists but are now only "Rand fans."

Hello Everyone,

Some local Objectivists and I are going to start a new think tank dedicated to Objectivist philosophy. I am concerned about the lack of scholarly work and activity on our side of the movement and think that by forming a new organization we can help revive the momentum that has been lost in recent years.

The name of our organization will be the Rational Mind Institute (aka RMI). We have 3 people who are members of the Board of Directors (myself included). A little under a month ago we enacted our bylaws, just last week our incorporation was approved by the state of Arizona and within weeks I expect we will be submitting the paperwork for 501 © 3 status.

The group will be based out of Phoenix and (fortunately) Arizona has a decent sized Objectivist/libertarian community. I think and hope it is that talent we can initially tap to help our group take off. It is also my hope that RMI will branch out to include and work with other individuals and like-minded organizations as well. Including people from ARI who maybe turned off by the events surrounding the purges of people such as John McClaskey and Robert Tracinski.

Arizona has the Goldwater Institute which is an excellent public policy think tank. RMI can be the philosophical transmitter of ideas that is very much needed not only in Arizona but around the country. Simultaneously, we can also coordinate events and other activities with like-minded groups including (but not limited to) The Atlas Society and the people behind the Free Minds conferences.

I would like to see RMI host its own conferences in addition to helping to further scholarly work in the field of philosophy. If any of you would like to participate/help it would be appreciated. You can reach our group in which it will come directly to me at rationalmindinst (at) gmail.com.

We have reserved domains for a website and will have that up soon. You can also contact me through messaging on these boards as well. I am enthused about this endeavor and ask you all be a part of it.

I disagree on your interpretation but agree with what you stated and is quoted below, Michael. My comments were in a general sense and if engagement is undertaken then the deaths or injuries to civilians should be avoided and kept to a minimum if at all possible.

However, it should not distract from the overall goal of taking out the enemy. Especially if the opponent calls for their deaths as a sacrifice to their cause such as what is seen at Hamas rallies in the Gaza Strip.

In Gaza I have read of accounts where participants at Hamas rallies (including children) swear oaths to sacrifice their lives in order to kill their enemies. I would assume this includes committing acts of terrorism.

If you have an enemy (such as Hamas) that has openly declared they will committ acts of aggression and praise suicide bombers and terrorist groups, then in my mind all bets are off.

The soldier knows best at the time and, within a certain balance, what he does should be his subjective call--or that of his commanders.

In situations like this, I believe you take out the bullies with as much care as you can muster, lament the innocent dead and maimed, spit to get the bad taste out of your mouth and to hell with blaming anyone, and get back to morality.

That's what I believe decent people do.

Michael