Robert_Bumbalough

Well said. Thanks.

Thanks, good advice.

Hi there BC. Thanks for taking time to post your remark. I apologize for the whiny tone. I suppose I'm just not used to being insulted and threatened by "progressive" politics fans for defending capitalism and individualism and seem to have needed to vent a bit. I've long respected your opinions on matters of science and have enjoyed reading many of your comments. I've no intention of attacking you by noting why the points you mentioned get no traction in my thinking. People deserve respect, but ideas have to earn respect. BC // Its own internal contradictions and limitations // I've not noticed any internal contradictions in Rands fiction or non fiction essays; could you provide an example other than the point about objective value you mentioned? Limitations? Please explain. BC // I deconstructed the notion of "objective value" Values require valuers. And humans who value something are using their judgement and intuition which is not entirely objective. // That values subsume the concepts of whom is to be the benficiary of value and for what purpose was specifically listed by AR in her Objectivist Ethics essay, and you listed the terms in backward sequence. Valuers require values to live. Values are ideas, and the ideas do not think the thinker, but thinkers do think ideas. She also specified that objectivity in reasoning is a choice that those who desire to live a rational existence make. That others are subjective in thier thinking doesn't discredit o-ism. BC // If value were the exclusively the property of an object, then two people correctly identifying what the object is could not possibly disagree on its value. // Objects, concretes or concepts, do not have value. They have worth with regards to one's wealth in varrying degree for differing persons. Values are concepts and are the subject of the processs of valuing performed by the valuers. The degree of worth valued by an individual can easily and objectivly differ from that of some other due the difference of their ciucumstances. (Note this would be a good place for me to talk about the worth of keeping a razor blade in one's mouth all the time, but I'm going to resist that temptation.) BC // But people disagree quite frequently. // Yes people do disagree, but rational persons have no conflict of interest because they understand and grasp that they can grant a full suite of rights to each other because they're better off benefitting from division of labor economy and trading with each other within the context of laissez faire capitalism. BC // How do you account for that? // What do you mean by "account for"? Religious charlatans often use that question as a polemic in attemp to stump an atheist commenter on blogs. If you meant 'Why do people disagree?' the answer is easy; many people are subjective , irrational, illogical, and attempt to use emotions as cognitive tools. If they were rational they'd agree becasue existence exists and has primacy over consciousness and A=A. BC // Is there only one way of identifying an object? // AR said logic is the non contradictory means of identification, so I think any tool that can be used in the non contradictory way of logic can be appropriate. How would this discredit rational philosophy? BC // When we perceive something are we perceiving what we perceive exactly as it is (out there in reality) or as it appears to us. We look at a rose in the sunlight and say it is red. A bee looks at the same rose and thinks it is ultraviolet. Who is right? We both are. We see what our eyes are structured to see as does the bee. Different nerves, different structures, different views. // LP wrote a longish description of o-ism's explanation of why differing forms of perception don't invalidate the senses in OPAR chapter two. Your objection was anticipated and answered not only by LP but by Kelly as well in "Evidence of the Senses". BC // Leonard Peikoff has done more to discredit Objectivism than any left wing collectivist nay-sayer. // Have you read Linsey Perigo's piece at Solopassion on Yaron Brook and the ARI gang going over to the collectivist/socialists? LP isn't speaking against that, so those guys have betrayed Objectivism but not discredited o-ist epistemology. solopassion.com/node/10396

Greetings OL readers, yet I live still, and am troubled by the vast horde of self identified socialists who slander Objectivism, Capitalism, Rand, Peikoff, Kelly, Branden, and the other Objectivist philosophers. How does one succinctly respond to broad sweeping claims that O-ism is nonsense or the realist philosophers are or were kooks without getting pedantic or waxing into pedagogy? Thank you for suggestions.

Hello Anthony. Thank you for opportunity to comment regarding the quoted portion of your remark. Sir. The OP question is not legitimate. Legitimate means the question occurs in an objective context. Prager, being a religious organization, operates in the context of superstitious mythology, yet the staff and associates of Prager understand by direct perception without having to perform deductive reasoning that their religious god is not real. They know their god is a mere fantasy because they directly experience the primacy of existence. Since the primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness forms a valid dichotomy, to know the former is valid and sound is to know the later is false. To know existence has primacy over consciousness is to know consciousness does not and cannot make reality. Since the Christian "God" is alleged to be a ruling consciousness that makes reality, they, and all beings capable of conceptual reasoning, know "God" does not exist. Hence they know that religious divine command theory cannot be a valid moral system regardless of whatever god is imagined by a religious adherent. Consequently, the question "If there is no God, murder isn't wrong?" occurs in a subjective context which eliminates it from the category of legitimate. primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html objectivity http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html vs subjectivism http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html Thank you for allowing me to comment and best wishes to you and yours.

// What's wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? // It's wrong to believe Christianity's story because it's false as in not true. The Christian God is alleged to be a form of consciousness that magically created existence. This is an explicit stolen concept fallacy. Since consciousness is an activity that something does, consciousness does not exist independent of the something else meaning consciousness is 100% dependent upon existence. When religious believers of any faith tradition claim consciousness is a thing apart from existence as in substance dualism, they're committing a performative inconsistency fallacy. Ayn Rand identified this when she discussed the Prior Certainty of Consciousness Fallacy. The reason PCC is a fallacy is that it is contrary to the primacy of existence. Objectivists should be hostile to all lies including those of religious faith heads. The dems are correct to be hostile to Christianity and should be hostile to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and all forms of theism or deism.

What's a good argument for or against the deity of nominal Christianity, Judaism, Islam?

Hello readers et. al.:, Respects to Ms Judith and to those to whom she refers. It is not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings or to provoke anger, so when I type that I respectfully disagree, please accept my sincerity. I meditate several times a week using brain wave entrainment software and an audio-strobe device. These technologies allow me, and almost any other person, to easily obtain to deep meditative trance states. What happens in such trance states is that the prefrontal cortex where one's rational waking-thinking mind occurs is silenced so that one's normally unconscious mind can easily communicate with the prefrontal cortex. In deep meditative states no super-natural phenomena happens; it's all brain function. Human beings can do nothing without emotions. The minds emotional context produces confidence or trepidation or any of the many other emotional states that motivate one's decisions. As a day trader, emotions inform me. My unconscious mind recognizes situations that my rational prefrontal cortex may not be aware of and communicates to what I think of as me with emotions and visual memories. This is not spirituality; it is normal brain function that can be enhanced by training the brains systems to cooperate more closely. Time: Best Wishes an Regards.

Greetings Ayn Rand fans and fellow Objectivists. I could not find a topic on this question. If there is a more appropriate location for this question, would the moderator be so kind as to move it there. Many Thanks. I recently encountered a rather rude person who voiced an objection to O-ism from what was claimed as a fatal contradiction between O's Metaphysical Axiom law of identity and volitional will. The socialist/communists sympathizer asserted that minds cannot posses volitional will if reality's casualty results from the law of identity. I could not think of a way to counter that point, so now I respectfully ask: How does an Objectivist philosopher reconcile the volitional nature of free will with the casualty of material existence given facts from neurophysiology showing mind is a function of physical brains so as to validate that will is indeed volitional as opposed to deterministic as would seem Prima Facie true (as opposed to a thoughtful Prima Secundae) under a=a casualty as applied to physical brains without regard to how minds actually work without seeming to appeal to mysticism or ignorance? Best wishes and regards for your continued success; I hope you make huge profits from capitalism and free market enterprise.

Hello Ted and friends here at OL. I'm not sure if posting a link to my blog is allowed, but I typed out my thoughts on the fear or strong emotion rebuttal to the fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty and posted on my blog. If this violates the rules, will the moderator please flag this post. I will amend it next time I log in. Best Wishes for Big Profits.

At capitalism.net Dr. George Reisman posts a half hour lecture where he explains the link between Nazism and Socialism. Being an extremely ignorant person, Dr, Reisman's lecture was like a torch served me to expell some of the darkness from me. I want to say my mind instead of me, but me and my mind are one. So on with the show. This is it. http://www.capitalism.net/index.html The mp3 file link is below. http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/08%20Nazism%20and%20Socialism.mp3 Best Wishes for the Reader to Make Huge Profits.

Maybe George will comment. Yes, America does need more capitalists, but the capitalists need more freedom, especially from various taxes and regulations. If I had a big wad of capital I'd not invest much here now, maybe a little abroad, but mostly I'd sock it away in capital preservation, non-touchable and non-taxable, assets. --Brant Hello Brant: Yes that's a good idea and one I myself am using to help guide my financial stance. Thanks for your comment. Best Regards for Continued Success.

Repsectfully request well versed Objectivist philosophers comment on epistemological foundherentism is a theory of justification with respect to how Objectivism's doctrines would relate, compare, and contrast to Haack's (No, its not a joke, her name is Susan Haack.) work in joining foundationalism with coherentism induction justification theory? This is pertinent to the question of refuting Solipsism because it is a way to justify induction. Many Thanks and Best Wishes for You Making Lots of Money. (American needs more capitalists.)

Hello Mr. Keer; Indeed, what an excellent concise summation of a pragmatic utilitarian view of philosophy. I have made similar comments in discussions with epistemic constructionists of various sorts and do agree with you. However, the purpose of message boards such as this one is to provide a place to discuss ideas just for the fun of it. There is no pretense at trying to convince others to adopt any ideas or to change their thinking in any way attendant to my postings. I would be taking too great liberties to assume anyone would be swayed by my prattling. But, thank you for reminding me that the purpose of philosophy is to live better and not to provide arrogant, indolent, slovenly grad students a secure berth where to feed at the trough in a public University's Philosophy department. In answer to your question, I think the value of a proof existence will still exist 5 minutes from now is like that of a general philosophical justification of induction that is parsimonious and broad of scope. Such proofs can be used to refute solipsism and various primacy of consciousness metaphysical errors. I hope I am warranted in thinking you and the readers are familiar with how frustrating it is to argue with leftists who hold constructionist theories of truth valid. In order to persuade people who think truth is a social construction because either the world is a dream in the mind of a supreme being or that reality is incoherent, that limited constitutional government and laissez faire capitalism are in their interests, they must first be convinced their premises are false and further that Objectivism's are correct. Best Wishes and Regards for Your Continued Success Robert

Hello Mr Keer: Yes that is an interesting story. It reminds me of my recent encounter with a home invading burglar. At 3:10 am my Chihuahua, Taco, woke me up out of a sound sleep. I thought he wanted out for a pee. In the kitchen I heard something moving about in the back mud room. I opened the door and saw an intruder. He spoke something I did not understand and stepped towards me. I slammed and locked the door and held it closed for a few seconds. Then I ran for my shotgun. I got it out of my closet and fumbled in the dark to load it. I dropped one of the shells. It seemed to me that it took at least a minute for the shell to fall to the floor, then I got another into the chamber and snapped the gun closed. (Its a single shot New England Arms 12 gauge.) I ran back to the kitchen and called out,"I have a shot gun." Then I heard foot steps going away and out of my mud room. The perceived danger made my heart beat fast, and I did not sleep for several hours. These sorts of events that make us feel more alive for some reason testify to the efficacy of our senses in detecting the real. I think that's what Hume was getting at in his discussion in Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ok, so human senses operate on a 200 millisecond delay so I've been informed from somebody along the way. If reality does exist, as I think it does, but is incoherent and subject to near instantaneous bizarre happenings, as I usually dispute, then we can't be sure existence will be here from second to second. But as Tod Angst pointed out at Link to Tod Angst's essay, Hume mentioned that its our habit to assume induction works and will continue to work. So its not irrational or illogical to use induction even if it might be possible the worst could happen in the blink of an eye. But like Hume I want to know how I can philosophically justify with absolute certainty that I will continue to exist 5 minutes from now. Sadly, Tod Angst's offered compromise of polling Bayesian probabilities that converge to unity when their summation limit approaches infinity seems cumbersome at best. While O-ism's epistemological foundationalism also seems insufficient to me. That's the rub. U of N is a necessary condition and without foundationalism of some sort is not a sufficient condition some will argue even in the face of something pointy. Although, their argument could not be taken seriously because crazy people should be treated or left alone but not taken seriously. Is the habit of assuming Uniformity of Nature sufficient for practical utilitarian purposes good enough to be called knowledge without going down the Bayesian probability road? Well Yes. It is. Its even better if we can qualify it with a solid probability of correctness. So The original argument about solipsism's falsity implying reality does have merit despite DragonFly's error-fallacy of arguing from inductive uncertainty. Thanks for reading and I hope you make lots of money. America needs more capitalists. There are too many collectivists running about smearing working to get rich. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow. Good night.

Why? That we often find causes for events doesn't mean that this always must be the case. That is the fallacy of induction. So your argument has already been derailed at this point, no need to read further... Hello folks: This message comes to you from Robert Bumbalough. Although Dragonfly posted this comment about a year and a half ago, the issue bugs me. Please forgive me if I'm posting this in a wrong thread. I respect people who think whatever their take on Objectivism. It is my understanding that the problem of induction refers to how to justify inductive reasoning. So I question why is inductive reasoning a fallacy? If existence is not a product of consciousness and actually does exist independent of consciousness, and if reality is casual and A does indeed equal A for objects other than quantum particles and for events other than radioactive decay or quantum vacuum fluctuations such as speculated in Hawking Radiation, then uniformity of nature is both a necessary and sufficient condition to justify induction. That a Boise Einstein Condensate will behave in peculiar manner does not mean that angular momentum is likely to stop working in the next few hours so we can be 100 percent certain that the Sun will come up tomorrow and that there does exist a logical connection between the way reality behaved in the past will be the way that it will act in the future or that there will be a future. Hume did not know about genetics or evolution so his knowledge was incomplete regarding the swans. It is the case that black swans show up from time to time. His expectation that all swans should be white may have been sourced in Christian religious creation teachings about "Kinds" of animals. It is known that mythology has no explanatory power. I think it may be the case that thinking the uniformity of nature not a sufficient condition to justify induction is due to a dearth of knowledge about how nature works and requires omniscient knowledge that no natural causation can give rise to some effect or a lack thereof subject to inductive reasoning. However, even if casualty of material existence is not sufficient to vivify induction, then a probability buttressed induction can be substituted that entails the uniformity of nature a necessary condition and a Bayesian probability greater than P of the cause yielding the effect a sufficient condition. Since different thinkers will assign different subjective values to prior probabilities given evidence in question to the concept or notion being inducted, the the law of large numbers will work to converge the Bayesian number generated by a bunch of different Bayes Theorem crunchers to some value as the limit of the number of computations approach infinity. Here's link to a discussion of this angle on validating induction. If induction cannot be justified by any means, then it would seem to me that Objectivism and any other philosophical system dependent on reality would fail at a metaphysical context and the Communists would be right. Reality cannot be known or understood by an individual and a collective consciousness by it mystical power would somehow justify big shots enslaving everyone else. Its important to me that I know a solution to what Dragonfly called the fallacy of induction. Can the reader help me out here? (Picture Bumbalough standing beside the freeway in the rain on a dark night holding up the jumper cables.) Thanks for reading and maybe helping me out. Best Wishes. *************************************************************** 10-11-2010 20:48 GMT-6; Addendum added by Robert Bumbalough. I'm probably wrong, but I'm used to that. So Here goes. While driving home tonight, I had a few thoughts about the induction fallacy thingy. (snip. Text removed for reworking and redacting.) Best Wishes and Regards, Thanks for Reading; I appreciate you all.

Good Morning Friends: Thank you for viewing and reading my posting. Forty people viewed the post, yet none left a comment. I acknowledge that which I have requested is hard and time consuming. Nevertheless and though its only my opinion, I'll still go out on a limb here. The importance of the status of intellectual property as morally good relative to an individual and to their activities as free traders lies in how human rational reasoning enables a person to act as a capitalist free market participant. If Mr Kinsella's challenge is left unanswered, then would it be the case that our human interaction with reality being misrepresented might induce some to advocate yet more restrictions on capital enterprise to the determent of free market participants? Consciousness is real and comprises a set of instantiated actions undertaken by brains integrated into biological organisms capable of self generated and sustaining action. Consequently, information manipulated by consciousness into unique configurations exists having attributes. Structured information therefore qualifies for thing status. If it is a thing among the set of all other things that exist, then it is part of existence. If it is part of existence and is capable of being controlled, then it may qualify for ownership status. At aynrandlexicon.com the property rights page lists several quotations wherein Ms Rand discussed property rights. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html Unfortunately for the purpose of refuting Mr Kinsella, she did not offer a definition or a meaning of the concept of ownership or property. Would someone be so bold as to posit a meaning for the concepts ownership and property? Dictionary.com reports for owner http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/owner?r=75 and for property http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property Wikipedia.com reports for owner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner and for property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property Are these meanings acceptable?

Hello Friends and Fellow Objectivists Sirs or Madams: First a brief disclaimer: I am not an expert in Objectivist philosophy, so I do not hold myself to be an authority. Please do not construe anything in this posting as an ad hominen attack or fallacious argumentum ad vericundum. I respectfully request your time and effort to compose and write a rebuttal against the following. Stephan Kinsella at http://mises.org/story/3682 has posted an essay entitled "The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide". Would some person who is an Objectivist Philosopher who wishes a new project please critique Mr Kinsella's essay and write a rebuttal. Mr. Kinsella makes some false assertions regarding Objectivism and consequently distorts the Objectivist position while additionally making at least a few fallacies. For example in the first two paragraphs he writes: Its good practice in a formal essay to use good diction via use of primary definitions of words. Doing so insulates the writer from charges of equivocation. If the writer wishes to use other than primary definitions she should explain that in the piece. Mr Kinsella fails to heed that warning and thus opens himself to equivocation charges. He uses the word “assumed” with its secondary meaning of [taken for granted; supposed] rather than its primary meaning of [adopted in order to deceive; fictitious; pretended; feigned:]. (Note that despite Mr Kinsella's profession of lawyering, I'm not making the obvious lawyer pun here.) This seems a small quibble, but its good writing to structure one's essay such that points are presented in sequential order of importance. More importantly, nevertheless, is the content of meaning in the sentence: “I initially assumed intellectual property (IP) was a legitimate type of property right.” Here Mr Kinsella betrays his lack of proper metaphysics. Since existence really does exist, and human beings have direct sensory verification of that fact, then human beings don't take for [granted or supposed] that there is consciousness or instantiated things and actions because our cognitive faculty automatically integrates our sensory perception so that we can then form concepts as the basis for knowing we have conscious intellectual processes. Lacking a proper view of metaphysics, Mr Kinsella cannot fail to hold false definitions of intellectual processes and of instantiated things and actions. Yet by contrasting his faulty definition of IP with a “ legitimate type” he further reveals he holds that rights come from societal acquiescence rather than the interaction of rationally reasoning and living human beings with objective existence. This follows from reflection on the meaning of legitimate: [according to law; lawful]. Since there is no such thing as society, then it cannot grant or do or think anything including grant moral license. Appropriately then, rights can be recognized and protected by an institutionalized political body through rules establish and agreed upon by the citizens of the political body, but not granted. Mr Kinsella may have made a sort of frozen abstraction fallacy. He continues by mentioning “property rights” and thus acknowledging that human can have moral license to own things. But by employing an unstated enthymeme that actions are not instantiated, he vivifies his stolen concept fallacy by denying the production of thought as qualifying for ownership while asserting a non-existing society can grant moral license to hold and control things. Mr Kinsella then continued that he “had misgivings from the start.” How can that be? He does not say. Yet in one brief sentence, he dismisses all of Objectivism while neither citing any authority or even attempting to offer argument for such a case. This in my opinion forms a fallacious incidence of Argumentum Ad Vericundum wherein he holds himself as authority essentially saying he is right because he says so. Nevertheless, his misgivings may have been due to his failure to understand Objectivist metaphysics. Mr Kinsella further elaborated, “ there was just something too utilitarian and results oriented in Rand's purportedly principled case for IP.” This is most interesting as later in the essay he makes a utilitarian argument for self-ownership of one's body. So here he commits to the first half of a later contradiction while ignoring that Peikoff argued against Utilitarianism when he wrote: These objections are a serious short coming of Mr Kinsella's case. But even more puzzling is his assertion that there was “something too artificial about the state's copyright and patent statutory classifications.” Well of course they are artificial as they are man made and not part of the metaphysically given. The protections the State offers the citizens are the very justifications for the State. If the State does not protect the citizens, then it is a detriment to their existence, and they would be justified in altering the extant State or substituting a new one. But here again Mr Kinsella shows a definite lack of specificity as he does through out his essay. However, that aside, he continued “I finally realized that IP is incompatible with genuine property rights.” The act of realizing means to grasp or understand clearly. This is an act of reasoning that is an intellectual process. Mr Kinsella thinks and holds that his thoughts cannot be property. Yet in order for his thought to exist, they must be instantiated action of a living brain. For some reason he further holds that some property can be such that a genuine right applies to it. If the product of thought cannot be property, then how can it be the instantiated action of a living brain and competent to ascertain the attributes of anything. I think this is another example of a stolen concept. Mr Kinsella says he is in “favor of Rothbardian anarchism.” Mr Rothbard's case for anarchy, found here http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html , entails that competing providers of security services, insurance and arbitration companies would be motivated to work cooperatively in order to avoid warfare and thus people could function without a State. Such cooperation would be complex enough to require those entering into agreements to write the articles of agreements into a contract or other formal recorded medium. Doing so institutionalizes the agreement which then automatically becomes a State. Here Mr Kinsella falls for the same trap into which Mr Rothbard was immersed. Mr Kinsella then states “I realized the state is aggression incarnate and cannot be justified.” While its very true that those who operate the machinery of the State can impose very harsh excessive force against any and all at a whim, this alone is not sufficient to render the concept of the State invalid or unjustifiable. Ayn Rand explained, So then the State is justified by virtue of its structure allowing for objective control, but excesses of tyrants are not. Mr Kinsella confuses the State with the wrongful behavior of tyrants. I think that may be a package deal fallacy. This then is my commentary on the first two paragraphs of Mr. Kinsella's essay. There is a rich field of fallacy, a cornucopia of target opportunities there for the interested writer. It is my hope someone more versed in Objectivism than I will take Mr Kinsella to task as pretensions of intellectual superiority abound on the Mises.org comment forum. Please forgive any misspelled words and poor grammar. Thank you for your time and effort spent reading. Best Regards

Greetings Ba'al: Thank you. I admire and respect your mind and education. There is much I have to learn, and like the philosophers I too am very uncomfortable with nonlocality. But that may be because I do not understand it. Victor Stenger wrote: Stenger also wrote about a process he calls zigzagging in spacetime as an explanation of nonlocality. What Stenger says here makes sense, (I think, but I'm not sure.), if the thing about quantum particles moving backwards through time is allowable as he claims Feynman showed. Could this be an explanation for nonlocality that eliminates "magic" from consideration? Many Thanks

I found the following interesting linked article by Victor Stenger on the Skeptical Inquirer site. Quantum Quackery Dr. Stenger wrote:

Hello GS: Sir one interesting thing about double slit experiments is that if the procedure is done in a sealed room without an observer or a recording device connected to the detectors stationed on the slits, then the interference pattern still breaks down. This indicates the phenomena is not a "a human perceptual artifact". Only measurement need be present without conscious observation to bring about the effect. (This is a very strong argument against the existence of an omniscient god, btw. Such a being would necessarily have to know δX and δP. The breakdown of the interference pattern when the detectors are turned on is positive proof god is not there.) Also interesting is Oxford Physicist Joy Christian who has demonstrated a disproof of Bell's Theorem. If Christian's work withstands critique, as it appears to be doing, then it is very possible to construct a deterministic local variable theory that makes the same predictions as standard QM. Christian wrote: This means that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are vindicated and QM is not a complete model of reality provided Christian's work stands. Here is a link to Gideon Reich's blog where he discusses in detail the history of this controversy. Link to Armchair Intellectual Blog

Mr general semanticist could you elaborate on this by describing the concepts you here mentioned? Could you also describe the concepts of existence, identity, consciousness as well? Thanks. Best and Good RB

Good Evening Friends: It is my hope all are well, living long, prospering and deservedly so. Today I googled up a recently published paper that clarifies Bell's Theorem. Written by A D Boozer of the Department of Physics at California Institute of Technology. His paper is intended to clarify the issues of hidden variables, Bell's Theorem, and nonlocality. Boozer notes that QM theories can be constructed that are deterministic and use local hidden variables. Here is the link to the paper published in the European Journal of Physics. (Users must register for free access.) Hidden variable theories and quantum nonlocality Boozer concludes with: Boozers result shows that an irrational faith in quantum indeterminacy and nonlocality used to inform a commitment to idealism or nominalism is unwarranted and unjustified. Deterministic local hidden variable theory that makes the same predictions as standard QM are possible as is confirmed by de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory.