Jonathan David Leavitt

Bingo!

At this time I agree with Ba'al Chatzaf, inducing my conclusions from all the white swans of what I know about science. If George Soros' favorite philosopher formulated the idea, it's not my problem. Interestingly, the Global Warming scientists also seem to agree, since they suppress evidence which might falsify their altruistic, collectivist hypothesis. Question: if falsifiability is removed from science, what do we have left?

Hume, as others before and after him, including LP, induced that induction is a philosophical problem. Popper and Rand seem to disagree, though Rand is not explicit (am I missing something she wrote or said?) Popper asserts that induction doesn't exist, only falsifiability. Rand asserts that induction exists as a tool of cognition. Does she mean that induction is a corollary to the axiom "existence exists," since one might induce that cognition exists? If that is what she meant, the "problem" goes away. Also, if that is what she meant LP might have to "solve" the "problem" by restating her assertion, annihilating all intellectual enemies in the process. Meanwhile, we have other problems: Soros, Pelosi, Reid, RINOs, mystics, altruism, and collectivism, just to name a random few.

No. I produced a counter example. Induction looks like this. Conjunction of particulars -> universal proposition. What I did was universal proposition & counter example -> universal proposition false. The way to refute any universally quantified proposition is to produce a counter example (x)P(x) [for all x Px ] is falsified by -Pa for some particular individual Pa. Ba'al Chatzafr You have claimed that induction is invalid, not to have disproved the claim that no one has made, that all supposed instances of induction are valid. What premises do you have that weren't first at some point induced, Bob? God, Bob, do you profit nothing from Rand? The stolen concept is 101 level. Thus spake Rand: Induction and Deduction The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction. The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 28. Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/induction_and_deduction.html Anyone got a problem with that?

No. I produced a counter example. Induction looks like this. Conjunction of particulars -> universal proposition. What I did was universal proposition & counter example -> universal proposition false. The way to refute any universally quantified proposition is to produce a counter example (x)P(x) [for all x Px ] is falsified by -Pa for some particular individual Pa. Ba'al Chatzafr You have claimed that induction is invalid, not to have disproved the claim that no one has made, that all supposed instances of induction are valid. What premises do you have that weren't first at some point induced, Bob? God, Bob, do you profit nothing from Rand? The stolen concept is 101 level. Does that mean, then, that induction is a solution (occasionally) in search of a problem? Karl Popper (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. p. 53. ISBN 0061313769. "Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure." [Wikipedia] Or does it mean that Peikoff is a Popper in search of a Soros?

No. I produced a counter example. Induction looks like this. Conjunction of particulars -> universal proposition. What I did was universal proposition & counter example -> universal proposition false. The way to refute any universally quantified proposition is to produce a counter example (x)P(x) [for all x Px ] is falsified by -Pa for some particular individual Pa. Ba'al Chatzafr You have claimed that induction is invalid, not to have disproved the claim that no one has made, that all supposed instances of induction are valid. What premises do you have that weren't first at some point induced, Bob? God, Bob, do you profit nothing from Rand? The stolen concept is 101 level. Does that mean, then, that induction is a solution (occasionally) in search of a problem?

George, LOL... Actually there was a picture and your post is a good reason to say why there is no longer. When you use a link to a graphic from another site, you have to be careful. If the picture disappears from that link at the other site, it will disappear here, too. I suggest folks download the graphic, then upload it to Photobucket--or some other image storing site--and use the link from there. If anyone has any doubt about copyrighted images, sneaky folks rename the downloaded file before uploading. That way Photobucket (or whoever) does not delete the image. I'm not saying you should or should not do that. I'm just sayin'. Anyway, IP protection on the Internet is all over the place. I suggest folks use common sense and not hardened categories or stubbornness while the copyright rules and laws are being thrashed out everywhere. In other words, do what you think is right or reasonable and don't worry too much about what other folks do. Michael The photos I have posted on Twitpic show up on my laptop but not on my iPad. I have no idea why that happens. I wonder if the forum software uses Adobe Flash, which on Apple's mobile device OS is as welcome as a whore in church or Murray Rothbard at an ARI board meeting.

"'You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that,' Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who save the day in 'Space Cowboys.' That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea, he said." This is an off shoot of the Ezekiel Emanuel [Rahm's brother's] view of humans as mere pieces of inventory that should not be invested in after certain ages. You know, the death panels that hammered Palin about. By the way, Paul Krugman this weekend stated: "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now." The Obama healthcare plan passed by Congress in 2010 includes government-run healthcare committees with sweeping powers, including the power to engage in competitive pricing and cost analysis, a system Britain uses that has led to rationing of medical care for the elderly. Critics of the Obama plan, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, quickly dubbed the committees "death panels," saying government agencies would decide who would live and who would die. Supporters of the Obama health plan dismissed such suggestions as nonsense. Krugman apparently thinks otherwise, and suggests that such death panels could be one way the federal government will be able to keep soaring medical costs under control as baby boomers enter retirement. Socialism always winds up with gas chambers, gulags or bloody rice paddies. Adam The favorite political philosopher of the White House Communications Director. by curiousyellow, on Flickr

Rand at NBI 1968 was asked if she owned a Picasso what would she do with it? Seemingly the audience expected an answer to be something like, "I'd burn it!" Her actual answer was, "I'd sell it," to some laughter. --Brant

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights? --Brant She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be. A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock". These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism. Bob Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists. --Brant Earlier in this this thread my concerns about instincts (defined as innate knowledge) were adequately addressed. Althouh I am an experienced psychiatrist trained in biology, and, I would like to believe, well-acquainted with human nature, I do not believe that the complexity of evolutionary biology nullify Ayn Rand's formulation of man"s life qua man as the standard of value. Chris Matthew Sciabarra's trilogy of books on methodological orientation have helped me bridge the gap between the "atomism" of the special sciences including biology and molecular genetics, and the more integrated methodology that Rand used, which rejected atomism (concrete-boundedness) and dualism (the mind-body dichotomy.) Sciabarra attributes her methodology to her Russian education and calls it "dialectical," causing shock and horror in ARI because she had so much rage at Russian thinking, and because the D-word (dialectics) sounds like a wholly owned subsidiary of Hegel and Marx. However, I discovered by reading Sciabarra that I have been thinking "dialectically" for most of my life, with no influence from H & M. IMO man's life as a standard of value (qua man, not qua hippie or hipster) makes sense to me and I have been applying it subconsciously, and now consciously in my treatment planning for patients. But I still like Picasso, even the stuff with both eyes on the same side of the head. JDL I admit it. I like Picasso. Even some of the weird stuff. But, if it makes you feel any better, Beethoven doesn't do much for me. by curiousyellow, on Flickr

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights? --Brant She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be. A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock". These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism. Bob Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists. --Brant Earlier in this this thread my concerns about instincts (defined as innate knowledge) were adequately addressed. Althouh I am an experienced psychiatrist trained in biology, and, I would like to believe, well-acquainted with human nature, I do not believe that the complexity of evolutionary biology nullify Ayn Rand's formulation of man"s life qua man as the standard of value.

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute. Jim Glory be! I copied some text from the website, and there it was: an ® after Miss Rand's name. Not even a TM. Objectivism, however, us not registered. Perhaps it needs an alternate spelling, like Kleenex® instead of Clean-Ex. Obb-Djekti-Vizm®, perhaps? Well Jonathan you obviously haven't looked at the international affiliates like the Ayn Rand Institute Canada which possesses the coveted TM in its logo. Jim Is it the square with the fanned lines that is trademarked (symbolic, perhaps, of Ayn Rand fans?) Or is it AR's name itself? Makes me want to register "A is A" just in case it ever catches on with the whim-worshiping hippie set. Think of the royalties! Get it now while it's cheap!

Hmmm… I'm thinking of an iPod touch app, not Farmville, but Starnesville. You win capes and dollar signs if you can name all the reasons that socialism doesn't work. Free with a fully paid subscription to JARS.

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute. Jim Glory be! I copied some text from the website, and there it was: an ® after Miss Rand's name. Not even a TM. Objectivism, however, us not registered. Perhaps it needs an alternate spelling, like Kleenex® instead of Clean-Ex. Obb-Djekti-Vizm®, perhaps?

You're right. They were referring to knowledge.

A small cafelatte at my favorite hangout just went up from $3.02 to $3.29. I told the barista thar Glenn Beck was right, but he didn't know who I was talking about.

I just downloaded. It could be a good read. On the principle of follow the money, Soros deserved to have his Popper popped, and soon.

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger." We have a true believing Popperian on this forum. Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally. Adam I hope you don't think that the true-believing Popperian is me! I am totally opposed to "paper tigritude" and IMO Soros has stolen Popper's "open society" label to justify his (Soros') anti-Americanism. From what little I know of Popper (I never read any of his books) the "open society" is "liberal democracy" which means whatever the "open society" advocate wants it to mean. In other words, the "open society" is one in which "power to the people" means power to the people who say "power to the people." Popper was no Rand. Jonathan: LOL No, I certainly did not get any pro-Popper slant from you. Soros is an extremely dangerous self hating Jew who has funded a slew of anti individualist tax deductible organizations. You should look at the thread that Michael has posted which deals with Glenn Beck's evisceration of ole Georgie boy. Adam In fact I did read the Glen Beck v Soros thread and watched the videos, which led me to dust off my Shadow Party book and to start googling Soros and Popper. They say the devil has the best tunes, and Soros certainly has more effective NGO's than we do.

Cool! It worked.

Let's try it.

Dawkins is a militant atheist and anti-religion, but websites suggest that he's some kind of light-weight lefty. (Is there any other kind outside of North Korea?)

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem". In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation Precious little of her ideas remain standing. While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this??? Bob IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself. It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism. Quite apart from the difference between Comptean/Randian altruism, and "instinctual altruism",as JDL rightly points out, I'm expecting that scientists discover the 'inherent egoist gene', any day now.( ;) ) Sometimes those scientists play catch-up to philosophy. Her ideas still stand, Bob. Welcome, Jonathan. Tony Thanks for the welcome. By "inherent egoist gene," are you referring to This? BTW, Dawkins is no post-Randian.

How does one post a still image on this board? If such a thing is possible?

Apparently there are other Rand fans there, and you can watch them beat up on him. The way he keeps referring to Objectivism and posting links must be such a turn off to people, whether they’re familiar with Rand or not. He may as well talk about Jesus. He inhabits Betsy’s site, so you won’t find Comrade Sonia conversing with him. He puts his name, picture, and personal facts out there, no holding back. If I said someone mockingly referred me to it because of the Rand references (the truth), or that I was doing some kind of “research”, people would just cackle, so believe what you like. Gotta admit that some of the pictures…whew! But not safe for work, folks. Hmmm. It seems to me that there is spanking, and then there is "spanking by engraved invitation." I think the latter is what the thread-starter is talking about. Perhaps the ortho-O fellow (or gal) is seeking such an engraved invitation.

You are quite welcome. You have an interesting "writing style," but the "tigritude" was new to me and I would never have associated it with the "paper tiger." We have a true believing Popperian on this forum. Nevertheless, I can always use another anti-communist/marxist ally. Adam I hope you don't think that the true-believing Popperian is me! I am totally opposed to "paper tigritude" and IMO Soros has stolen Popper's "open society" label to justify his (Soros') anti-Americanism. From what little I know of Popper (I never read any of his books) the "open society" is "liberal democracy" which means whatever the "open society" advocate wants it to mean. In other words, the "open society" is one in which "power to the people" means power to the people who say "power to the people." Popper was no Rand.