Mike Renzulli

What your last statement is is just that: an opinion. Remember, epistemology is the theory of acquiring knowledge. Unlike science which uses testable hypothesis and studies to determine actual outcomes, epistemology requires that for something to be knowledge or be known, it has to be true in every way. Having a limitation on what you know is not the same as knowing nothing. When people become convinced that they cannot decide what is and is not the truth they go out and do their best using evidence grounded in reality to find out. The correct way to do this is to trust their minds and senses as well as other sources of knowledge and then come to a conclusion. If someone discovers more evidence that proves their initial conclusion incorrect then they change their minds. As you may know this is what Objectivist, if not philosophical, Epistemology is all about. Subscribing to anything else, such as the skepticism you seem to be communicating, can affect a person's ability to live. Including one's ability to think and reason which is essential for a person's means of survival. The most essential skill that is acquired by learning about epistemology is to empower people to distinguish illusion from truth. This includes preventing oneself from being conned or lied to while being able to determine who is and is not telling the truth. Your post and responses to replies seems to imply a larger message that people can't really know the truth (i.e. no one can really know anything about anything). So, I will leave it to you to explain how it is that your point of view enables you to know that no one can't really know anything about anything.

Indeed! I have also heard that POET may also be released as a book like what has happened with Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism series. I hope this happens too as listening and reading the lectures is a great way to learn the philosophy.

I can understand why Phillip is responding the way he is. I did find this lecture policy for the Summer Seminar as lectures at them last longer many times. I know this since my Objectivist club listens to TAS lectures frequently bs they can last a good 90 minutes or more including Q&A. Could the reason for the new polciy be due to budget constraints?

The New York Times just did a write up on David's passing. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/23nolan.html

One other thing. Prior to his passing David had requested that people donate any money they could spare to The Advocates for Self Government. Please consider donating in his name to honor his life and work by clicking here: http://birthdays.causes.com/wishes/106925?bws=fb_event_description or at the Advocates' website: https://www.theadvocates.org/donate.

I have some bad news. Libertarian Party founder David Nolan died yesterday at the age of 66. Details are sketchy but apparently David suffered a stroke while driving alone, swerved off the road and struck something which may have contributed to his death. Had he lived David would have been 67 as his birthday was this Tuesday. In Libertarian circles he is also known for having developed what became known as the Nolan Chart and helped form the L.P. during a meeting with eight others in the living room in his Colorado home in 1971. He just finished running against John McCain for his Senate seat in Arizona having received over 80,000 votes in a four way race in which he handled himself throughout the campaign in a demeanor and with admiral robust candor that would make any libertarian proud. While he and I had our disagreements he was always kind and thoughtful in his responses. David would take the time to talk to you if you had any concerns. He will sorely be missed.

I will respond by quoting what I said above your last post: Because our observations may not be correct viewing certain images does not change their fundamental nature. In the case of this optical illusion, the one cited by sjw and at the Wikipedia article is done purposely to decieve. In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all. If we were to see a dancer conducting the same action as in the illusion in the first post on a stage during a ballet it would not change the fundamental nature of the dancer nor our observation which is that the dancer is spinning in a certain direction on one leg with the other elevated. However, said dancer would be unable to elevate off the ground while conducting her action. What a weird interpretation. I never said reality shifted. Of course it doesn't. I think this is an example of the Objectivist foolishness I was talking about -- something occurred to you as being the case at first glance, and without a second thought you proceed to further reasonings, carrying on as if your initial assumption is an unquestionable given. Check your premises. You seem to be using a wrong (and not even Objectivist) definition of "perception" to be coming to the conclusions you are. No, I'm not advocating subjectivism, though I may be advocating skepticism, depending on one's meaning of the word. I am not advocating Objectivism's meaning of that word, which says that we can't know anything. I am advocating that we know through effort, not by "just knowing." This is skepticism in the original sense, just as liberalism meant liberty in its original sense. Your defense mechanism is clearly on high alert. As with the defense mechanism of the religious zealot, it's only defending you from knowing the truth. There is no "right" way to see the woman spinning. It's an ambiguous image. Here is a more clearly ambiguous image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Two_silhouette_profile_or_a_white_vase.jpg Shayne

The post seems to confirm my initial post unless Kimmler is posting this in response to mine in order to disagree with my comments. Like the Wikipedia article Kimmler cites states at the beginning: An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences. I think this is something similar to what I said in my response and David Kelley pointed out in The Evidence of the Senses. Because our observations may not be correct viewing certain images does not change their fundamental nature. In the case of this optical illusion, the one cited by sjw and at the Wikipedia article is done purposely to decieve. In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all. If we were to see a dancer conducting the same action as in the illusion in the first post on a stage during a ballet it would not change the fundamental nature of the dancer nor our observation which is that the dancer is spinning in a certain direction on one leg with the other elevated. However, said dancer would be unable to elevate off the ground while conducting her action.

I disagree. Optical illusions (so called) aren't shifts of reality. They are usually a person's misinterpretation of a certain event that may involve shifts in light or viewing a certain event from a point of view that may or may not allow them to see said event in its entirety. The below quoted part of your statement (if not taken in its entirety) seems to imply some sort of whim worshiping or then vieled skepticism on your part. If I am wrong, please clarify. People can change the course of the spinning woman in their minds, but cannot alter the fact that she is spinning one way with one of her legs up nor change the fundamental nature of what is on display. In other words people can try to bend reality or ignore it but reality will not ignore them.

Hm! By this statement is the author implying that he agrees with the so-called consensus as articulated by Al Gore on anthropogenic global warming?

I have read Daniel Pipes and I find him to be very good as well. However, for the record, I am not anti-Muslim but anti-Jihadist. I agree that Bernard Lewis is an excellent source as he is the foremost authority about Islam and I respect and look to Spencer as a source because he is well versed on Islamic theology yet seems to be more blunt in his assertions than Lewis. However, according to an interview of Bernard Lewis, there are very few times he and Spencer disagree with one another. My whole point is to understand and educate people about the enemy the U.S., if not western civilization faces, and the best way to do that is by looking at Islam as a whole. I saw the film Agora the other night. It is an excellent movie and I do not want to see the West to become the kind of society jihadists envision. If they are successful it would be just like what happened when ancient Christians sacked the Serapeum library. History would repeat itself all over again in which mankind would experience another Dark Ages.

I discovered something interesting regarding the investigation of statistician Dr. Edward Wegman. For those of you who did not know, Dr. Edward Wegman is a statistician with George Mason University. He became well known after the committee he chaired debunked Dr. Michael Mann's infamous hockeystick chart which climatologists and scientists used as evidence that global warming is anthropogenic (i.e. human induced). Wegman is one of the scientists profiled in Lawrence Solomon's best selling book The Deniers which was published in 2007. In early October, USA Today reported (link below) that Wegman is now being investigated by GMU due to a complaint made against him by someone for having plagiarized comments from a study that was used to invalidate Mann's chart. The accuser is none other than Raymond S. Bradley. Mr. Bradley co-authored of one of the papers Wegman attacked in his report, and he is also one of the people Wegman allegedly plagiarized. All I can say is I smell a rat. If Wegman plagiarized papers in order to rebutt Mann's chart then a pox on him. However, I cannot help but note the irony of this and would not be surprised if the complaint made against Wegman is really an act of revenge and is lacking in any merit. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1

What I hope to accomplish with my criticism is to continue the dialogue and education about Islam itself as well as the threat jihadists pose to the west. It does not help any when you have high profile media personalities (like Fareed Zakaria) claiming that the U.S. overreacted on 9/11, others stating that that the threat of terrorism is not as bad as it is being made out to be or is limited to a few radical Muslims. Yet you had Muslims who lead mostly secular lives becoming radicalized. Faisal Shahzad is a prime example. In terms of men like Rauf, you would think a Sufi would be a bit more secular or open to criticizing Muslims who conduct acts of terror or are involved in jihad. Yet, in Rauf's case, he will not even condemn them. It seems neither will Adonis.

It is not a matter of what I can do to help make things better but what the Muslims themselves will do. I can critize the religion all I want but (ultimately) it is those inside Islam themselves who must work to stop the radicalism that is growing inside their faith or they should leave if they are unsuccessful in doing so. Perhaps if I am to do anything it is to continue to criticize Islam as much as I criticize Christianity and Judaism while continuing to educate people about the religion and why we need to know about it. However, Islam will be the one religion I will critize more because it is Islamic terrorism and the states that support their jihad that the U.S. and western countries are at war with. I realize talking to them about things one can agree on is a good way to open a dialogue and I might do so in the manner you do myself. Yet, I am sure you are aware, to them people like you and I (in the strictest sense of the religion) are infidels and, according to the Quran, should be put to death. In terms of your question about Mosque/state seperation it will be very difficult to accomplish this since, in Islam, the state and religion are certainly to be intertwined if not by design certainly by default. As near as I can tell Islam has no concept of the secular view of religion/state seperation. Even in Malaysia which (as you point out) is westernized, the Monarchy and religion are one despite the country having secular courts for non-Muslims. Yet you notice there are Sharia courts in the country only for Muslims and they are not allowed to use Malaysian secular courts. As far as the Sufis are concerned, it should also be noted that Imam Rauf who is the spokesperson for the group behing the Ground Zero Mosque has also been identified as a Sufi yet he refuses to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group. I also posed this same question of denouncing Hamas to Libertarian Muslim on another thread on these same boards and he also would not condemn the group either.

Yes I saw your review, Ted. Thanks very much! This book will be put on my short list of ones to buy and read. Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars. The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing. Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive. Ghs I agree with George. The book is interesting and well written. He presents the methods of similarity and difference well. His histories seem accurate enough to me. While McCaskey's objections seem plausible (I can't judge, not having the detailed background or sources available) they are hardly fatal to Harriman and also hardly out of bounds per Peikoff. I agree that the beginning is shaky. Harriman basically declares in one sentence that "generalization" parallels concept formation and declares the problem solved. He seems to me to have presented the problem weakly and to have provided a facile solution. But I don't happen to think the problem is all that problematic anyway, since all "refutations" of induction depend upon premises that have at some point been induced. (I myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case.) The book is not a must read, but if you have any interest at all I recommend it if just for the stimulation. I gave it 4/5 on amazon.

Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism? Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars. The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing. Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive. Ghs

Hi Mike, I have done more research with regards to this. While I have no doubt in my mind the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, tolerant people unfortunately there are these striking things outlined in the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah that cannot be ignored. More specifically I have also read Bernard Lewis and Robert Spencer about Islam as and while I hold out some hope that the religion can be reformed to where it becomes more secular, unfortunately, in the Islam's presnt culture it doesn't look like it will happen. The reason for this is that the Islamic jihadists (as I call them) have (as Robert Spencer points out) a stronger theological basis than moderates or secularists if you will. The only difference between Christianity and Judaism is that if a fellow Muslim openly dissents and criticizes another's actions in the context of conducting jihad the result is ostracization or excommunication from the community or even death. There is a gentleman here locally named Dr. Zudhi Jasser who considers himself a devout Muslim however he is literally considered an outcast because he has been openly critical of the actions of groups like Al-Quaeda and other jihadists groups. As a result of his outspokeness it has lead to him being considered an outcast in the Muslim community where I live and possibly elsewhere.

I wanted to start a new thread specifically about Islam itself. It may have been addressed in previous threads but I think the need for one specifically about Islam is warranted since it hails from the Middle East. Back in August and September I decided to cover the subject of Islam for my Objectivist club. First we saw the film The Third Jihad and then in September an ASU College Professor of Russian language who became interested in Islam and studied up on it after 9/11. All I can say is learning about it was quite eye opening. To sum it up, ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali best describes the religion when she recently stated: Islam is more than a religion, it does have a spiritual dimension, but there is another dimension to Islam--a political dimension. As our guest lecturer, Dr. Carl Goldberg, pointed out the Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and Islam. The way that the submission is carried out is by settlement (i.e. jihad) and the institution of Sharia Law. The four main sources of Islamic jurisprudence are the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah and Sharia of which they include specific commands to conquer and guidelines on how to do it. The Sunnah or Hadith (I do not remember which) describe how Muhammad (who is not only the prophet of Allah but whose word is considered Allah's word) defeated his enemies in more than 60 military campaigns. The books also describe war tactics, the concept of deception, legislation on crime prevention, punishment of behavior such as the hanging of apostates and the stoning of adulterers, and laws governing family matters such as divorce and marriage. The way Islam is structured not only is dissent in the religion not doable (due to the specifity of the texts on which it is based) but also cannot be tolerated. The religion (if you want to call it that) is a way of life. In terms of war, there were times that Christianity was spread by the sword but the religion can and has been reinterpreted to where it is not in the sense of military campaigns. Islam is and it is a requirement of the religion. Many groups have suspended violent action in favor of pragmatic political activities. If you want to see what life would be like under Islam, you need look no further than Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method. From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Overall an excellent article. However, I wanted correct on minor error on Tracinski's part. In the podcast he cites, Peikoff said Property rights are contextual. Peikoff went on to point out not only the desert island scenario but also that if someone is in possession of a weapon stored in their house (a nuclear bomb I believe) that posed an immediate threat to the rights of the people surrounding said edifice then it was proper for government to seize it and the facility it was stored in. Germany, for example, recently and rightly shut down a mosque in Hamburg that was the place where the 9/11 terrorists help plot their strategy to pull off the WTC and Pentagon attacks and was discovered to be a meeting place for other jihadists too. In the case of the Ground Zero Mosque it is clear that it is being done in the context of the Islamists behind this project to thumb their noses at the U.S. if not western civilization and with Wahabbism being the main export of Saudi Arabia which also happens to be the predominate Islamic sect that occupies most Mosques throughout the world it is clear the GZ Mosque (and possibly others) should not be considered a legitimate religious edifice. I think the one thing that is refreshing about the whole GZM controversy is that it doesn't look like it will be built and it has exposed the stealth jihad people like Rauf and the Muslim American Society and other Islamist groups represent if not Islam itself.

Instead of participating in what seems like a spirited discussion about the meaning of the mind, I will touch on the actual movie itself in my response. I thought Hereafter was a tad slow but am glad Eastwood kept the movie consistent in its story in that it didn't get off track. The acting was good and so were the special effects. As to whether or not Eastwood made this movie to consider if there is an afterlife or the validity of near-death experiences (NDE's), I think ultimately he made this movie because he likes doing what he does and gets paid for it. I don't think it has anything to do with his considering NDE's as much as it is that he likes to make money by making movies. Back in the 1980's I remember some controversy regarding the flick Red Dawn since the movie dealt with the possibility of a communist invasion of Russia. I recall John Milius being criticized for Red Dawn due to their fear of it giving some legitimacy to conspiracy theorists and militia members allegations at the time that the Soviets and their allies would invade America. I think what Milius did for communist invasions is what Eastwood has done for NDE's. He took a (albeit far out) concept and ran with it by making a movie based on a topic not considered by Hollywood producers.

I love House and it is one of my favorite shows. Hugh Laurie's performance and the episodes and acting on the part of cast members are great! I don't know if House would be a good example of an Objectivist but I do like the fact that the character is one who doesn't give a rat's tail what anyone thinks about him and ruthlessly uses his knowledge trying to find the cause of said patient's illness in order to save or cure them. A really good show if one appreciates thinking and that's what House celebrates.

One aspect of Objectivism my group has not spent too much time on is the subject of aesthetics (i.e. art). The 45th Annual Western Art Exhibit (link below) is a a very good art exhibition at the Phoenix Art Museum that runs from October 17th until November 21st. The exhibit is hosted by the Cowboy Artists of America (http://www.cowboyartistsofamerica.com/) in which the exhibition was started back in the 1960's by 4 artists based out of Arizona to create and culminate art dedicated to life in the West. It is now one of the most anticipated events in the country and the exhibit features paintings and sculptures done in the past year by artists dedicated to the genre of cowboy art showing life in the West in contemprary and past sense. The best day to go is Wednesday since since admission is free. Any other day during the week the cost is $10 per person. This Western Art Exhibit is a great example of the romantic realism that Ayn Rand wrote about. The sense of life exhibited in the paintings and sculptures is wonderful and the symbolism of the cowboy is the rugged individualism that not only Objectivism stands for but also the United States too. Objectivist author Andrew Bernstein said it best when he said: What we honor about the cowboy of the Old West is his willingness to stand up to evil and to do it alone, if necessary. The cowboy is a symbol of the crucial virtues of courage and independence. I have urged by club members to see this art display every year since I first discovered it 4 years ago and have been amazed at the paintings and sculptures the artists linked to the group that sponsors this have been able to come up with. If this exhibit comes to your area or you happen to be in a city where it is being held, don't miss this fantastic display of excellent artistry that celebrates the pioneering spirit of the American West! http://www.phxart.org/exhibition/exhibitioncowboys45.php

I talked with someone on staff at LFB the other day and the bookstore is going to switch owners .... again. ISIL had some internal strife to where Jim Peron and Mark Pickens ended up folding up their tents and moved to California to start some sort of new venture. What it will entail I am not certain but I am sure it will be related to books. As far as LFB is concerned, the bookstore will now be owned and operated by Agora Financial which, as many of you may know, is multi-million dollar company based out of Maryland (respectfully). I am sure once the inventory for LFB is full transfered LFB will carry most (if not all) of Agora's investment author's books, products, and services. Hopefully Agora will continue what LFB was known for as carrying book titles that are along libertarian and even Objectivist lines. As far as ISIL in concerned, one key staff member (Jim Elwood) is moving back to San Francisco but I am unsure if ISIL will remain in Gilbert, Arizona where they moved to a couple of years ago. The group will go back to doing international conferences which was their signature venture and what ISIL was best known for.

Thanks for the reply. The thread on which the Hsieh's article was put in was very far into the original/beginning subject. I will try to get caught up and participate.