Jonathan David Leavitt

So you say. Present your evidence in public and have it properly vetted by a competent authority. Ba'al Chatzaf "I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963 'B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.'" Investigators compared "impulse patterns" (suspected gunshots and associated echos) on the Dictabelt to 1978 test recordings of Carcano rifles fired in Dealey Plaza from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and from a stockade fence on the grassy knoll forward and to the right of the location of the presidential limousine. On this basis, the acoustics firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman concluded that impulse patterns 1, 2, and 4 were shots fired from the Depository, and that there was a 50% chance that impulse pattern 3 was a shot from the grassy knoll. Acoustics analysts Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, of Queens College, after reviewing the BBN data, concluded that the probability that shot 3 was from the grassy knoll was 95%." I knew the gentlemen at Queens College and their work was solid. Adam If I am not mistaken the Warren Commission reached their "Oswald the Lone Assasin" conclusion by inductive generalization, which, according to Karl Popper, is a myth.

I must say that I am surprised so soon after joining an Objectivist forum website to encounter zealous advocates of altruism. Perhaps I should have a look at some Christian websites to see if there are advocates of crucifixion and/or sin.

Well formulated!

It seems to me that demonstration of a guaranteed-true conclusion is impossible using induction. Is that, then, the problem? And deduction is radically parasitic on induction. There is no premise whose truth does not rely on prior induction. Interesting point. Does that mean, then, that all logical proofs are based on ideas derived from inductive generalizations? I would think so.

It seems to me that demonstration of a guaranteed-true conclusion is impossible using induction. Is that, then, the problem?

There is no doubt that man has a hard-wired tendency to murder his fellow man, yet using reason he can create moral theories to set limits on that destructive tendency. Could he not make use of a moral theory to set limits on the most destrucive forms of altruism, even if that altruism were a hard-wired tendency?

Got it. I looked up modus tollens. The statement about Rand can be falsified. It is IMO a common logical error made by Rand haters. Restating it: .If I am correct, the foregoing was an example of both modus tollens and falsification.

All it takes is on. One negative instance negates a universally quantified proposition. One fact contrary to a prediction without out any thing in the theory to explain the divergence brings a theory down. That is why the anomalous precession of the planet Mercury indicates Newton's gravitational theory is in error. There is no closer planet to the sun to explain the anomaly. (there is also another reason: According to Newton's theory, gravitational interaction is instantaneous which means information can be transferred at greater than light speed). Ba'al Chatzaf I am confused. Are you asserting that Rand's false statement that no woman is qualified to be President validates the the proposition that all of her statements are false, including, "A is A"?

This is the same story with the word Objectivist removed. So far I am sticking to my guns about Rand herself being the only Objectivist in history. I was going to substitute "libertarian" for "Objectivist," but the result was too painful, so I used Rand's term for libertarians, "whim-worshiping hippies." Interestingly, with that change made, the story sounds less like satire of Objectivism and more like journalism.

Rand, according to Peikoff, appears to be asserting that philosophers have failed to solve a problem. Just because she said that, and Peikoff quoted it, however, doesn't mean that a problem exists. However, if one believes the generalization, which I consider erroneous, "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements are true." Then the "problem" exists.

One decides based on the context. IMO it doesn't matter if one or more black swans exist, but the discussion and validation of Rand's ideas does matter on this forum, and to me. There seem to be three positions: 1. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements are true." (Could this be the ARI position? Was it the position alleged to have been held by the original NBI?) 2. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are false to validate the proposition that all of her statements are false." 3. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements deserve consideration, or at least a second look." (My position.) All of these assertions rely on an inductive process, but where one stops relies on one's personal context.

What cognitive tool does one use to validate reason? It can't be reason, obviously, because reason is what is being validated.

Post removed: redundant.

Concepts are constructed from perceptions. The construction of concepts is not a form of inference. It is the integration of perceptions. Ba'al Chatzaf Well, denying the validity of just enumerative induction, rather than induction in general is a whole lot more reasonable. Not that any sane person or any scientist in the last three millenia has ever used the method. But yes, we can all agree it is invalid. According to AR: Is her definition of induction different from yours? In what way is inference bypassed in the construction of concepts from perceptions?

Thanks for the Cialdini tip. I just googled the dude: Primate-see-primate-do, of course, could not be "knowledge" (or it would be an instinct) so it must be some kind of neural phenomenon which manifests as desire. I can buy that.

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 myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case. How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?

Hmmm… So fear of looking dorky by participating evaporates when the Dork-in-Chief takes a social risk? Or what?

Thanks, Rich. I already belong to Flickr, and it seems to work. If I have any trouble with it, I'll switch to Photibucket.

Steven: 1) your time and your work are yours to either trade, donate or hold back; 2) striking is not an initiation of force because there is no force employed by not working. As someone who claims to have read Atlas Shrugged, you seem to have missed the part about the men of the mind going on strike...; 3) you appear to elect to consistently and consciously choose to confuse people who have been influenced by Ayn's ideas, the philosophy of Objectivism and subsequent enhancements of open objectivist thought and the closed system, true believer Objectivists of the Lord of Nimrodery, Leonard "I will tell you what to believe" Peikoff; That is not what this forum is about. This is the only place that I have ever posted because of its intellectual openness. It would be interesting to see if you have the courage to understand that and to, as a consequence of understanding, respect it. In answer to your other picket line nonsense, my father was an original organizer of the NY Fire Department union in the 1930's when you were followed home from meetings and sometimes run off the road or worse. I have been in politics since I was about ten years old in the 1950's. I have stood shoulder to shoulder on picket lines when the cause was just. I have also fought against picket lines when the Communists were using the unions to bring down the US. You know the old communist union slogan, "If you can't open their minds, open their heads." So do not make the mistake that you seem to make that being a follower of Ayn's ideas makes a person naive as to the realities of the union movement and the obscenity it has become in America. Similar to the obscenity capitalism has become by getting in bed with the centralized government...there is your socialism of the right and the left. As I said in another post, your socialism has ALWAYS ended in the gas chamber, the gulag or the bloody rice paddy. Refute that if you would like to try. Adam Bravo!

Ayn Rand wrote: .Refusal to work is initiation of force? Of course, SEIU thugs beating up those who disagree with them certainly is initiation of force.

IMO, altruism has three distinct meanings: Rand: Biologists: (see above) The General Public: I am bringing these various meanings to the attention of all readers out of the goodness of my own selfish heart, but as a post-Randian thinker I'll be goddamned if I'm being altruistic. —JDL

Okay, I posted the "communist" image to Flickr, but I restricted access because many of my Flickr friends are altruist collectivist mystics (I.e., "Democrats") can any of you OL-ers see it, ir are you blocked too?

Let's try it again: Scrapbooking Communists by curiousyellow, on Flickr

I thought Twitpic was stable. Perhaps I should use Flickr.

Adam, at this point I cannot resist asserting that LP's prospects for eternal glory from having solved the Problem of Induction are growing DIMmer and DIMmer.