Charles R. Anderson

Jonathan, When I read your first post, I wondered if she was Diana Hsieh. On reading your 2nd post, I figured that this was pretty likely a confirmation that she was. If this is so, then your posts are very funny. Personally, I would not care to take a job working for an environmentalist website. There are so many websites with rational purposes, it should not be difficult for a competent website designer to find work. Of course, any Objectivist website designer should be competent or too embarrassed to admit it, unless maybe they were in the initial stage of their career. My materials analysis laboratory takes in work from many clients. I do not know what all of their purposes are, but since almost all are American or Canadian companies in the private sector, most of their purposes are probably rational. Indeed, I often come to know a substantial bit about some projects and most of those I can make a judgment on give me a great deal of satisfaction as a contributor. I have refused a few clients for moral reasons. I have also had a few clients who hoped that analysis would support some claim they have made and I have told them forthrightly that I expected the analysis would prove otherwise. I have had requests from Iran and other such countries in which they have asked me to provide analyses for purposes that as given would be fine, but because I suspected that there was a good chance that the use for the analysis might be very different than that claimed, I sent them packing. You can live on surprizingly little income. What you may want and what you need are very different things. Compromising your own ethics to own a nice car or home is just plain foolish. It is much better to hold your head high. In time, you will establish yourself in your profession and so many customers will come to you that you can pick and choose from them. There are nowhere near enough competent people in almost any profession. Be poor and establish your competence, then you will flourish. Some of the worst Christians I have known are those who most pretend to be good Christians. When a Christian wears his faith on his sleeve or has a Bible on his pickup dashboard, watch out. They seem to figure that the more dogmatically correct they are, the fewer acts of normal human benevolence and honesty they are required to perform. The same is true of the dogmatic Nazi or Communist. Could it also be true of the dogmatic Objectivist? Please pardon this internally inconsistent phrase. Actually, no Objectivist can be dogmatic, so those who think they are Objectivist are no such thing when they are dogmatic.

This funny piece is so strange and internally inconsistent, that I suspect that some readers will figure that Ayn Rand must have at least been an interesting and unconventional thinker. They will want to check out her work for themselves, it only to better understand how she has manipulated government and come to control industry!

Sure Paul, it would be a good idea to add philosopher, since one's philosophy is always wrapped up in doing science. In fact, it is interesting to observe many scientists with very irrational explicit philosophies utilize very different and more rational philosophies in their actual work. As an undergraduate, I took a course called The Philosophy of Science. It was almost entirely about logical positivist philosophy. This struck me as having very little to do with how scientists actually did scientific thinking and problem-solving. Logical positivism was totally inadequate for this purpose. I suppose now that scientists are simply viewed as a certain group of analytical thinkers who perform group thought and science emerges, but it is really not a description of the reality of any other group. If every group has their own politics and their own emotions then is it not necessary that every group have their own science? A thought just struck me. If you are a Christian scientist, then you believe in a god who causes miracles. It must be tempting for the Christian scientist who has failed to find an explanation for a phenomena in physics to simply proclaim the phenomena a miracle of god. But they do not do this. Does this mean that they do not really believe in a god of miracles or does this mean they think god is tired and worn out and cannot make miracles any more? Of course, I think the answer is that god knows he cannot put miracles over on scientists the way he could more primitive man. It probably also does not help that reporters are now quickly on the scene and the real happening is likely to be written down. This makes it harder for churchmen to embellish the event later. It really was very convenient for the sake of miracles after the Pope had forbid the common people to read the Bible, with the result that soon few common folk could read or write. Only churchmen did and they had a certain bias. Miracles could then flourish.

As a materials scientist and materials problem-solver, I have often told people that a great part of my work is that of a materials detective. Henceforth, I think I will say that I am both a detective and a hunter. I understand what you are saying here very well. I love your enthusiasm and thirst for knowledge and just plain figuring things out. One of the great problems I have with the often stated claim that science is the use of the scientific method and that method is the formation of a testable hypothesis by checking to see if its predictions are true, is that this fails to address the realm of scientific knowledge and how one is to come up with hypotheses worthy of expending one's effort and time on checking them out. It takes a lot of careful observation and the organization of a great many facts, such as the nature of entities and their relationships with one another, before one can choose the hypotheses to test with any efficiency. Once one sets out to test the hypothesis, how does one set up a good experiment? Again, one has to know a lot about reality to control the experimental conditions and to have any idea about errors. Science requires constant observation, organization of those observations, the development of reasonable analogies between similar kinds of entities and events, the use of the scientific method, and the management of limited resources. All of these activities are managed constantly or at least very frequently and they must be used iteratively in support of one another. The scientist is a hunter, a detective, an explorer, a mathematician, a manager, a team member, an advisor, and an improviser. And he is kid in the most incredible play pen full of ingenious toys to study essentially anything he sets his mind to. Sub-atomic particles, stars and galaxies, atoms that organize themselves in many different ways and degrees, molecules that grow and maybe even replicate themselves, living organisms, clouds with incredible patterns, ornery viruses, cells expert in fluid management, incredible optic nerves, much more incredible brains. This is indeed a benevolent universe. It allows us several decades worth of playing the most fascinating games seeking to understand parts of its beautiful complexity.

Paul, Your comments on raising children were beautiful. Or must I say, they were handsome? Anyway, you are a parent after my own heart. And, like your other friend's daughters, mine are 18, 22, and 24. I have not given up on trying to better understand them, but I do not expect that they will ever cease to surprise me with patterns of thought different than mine, some of which will lead them to conclusions different than mine. I have some reservations about the usual dichotomy of characteristics attributed to men and women. I disagree with many such characterizations if they are thought to apply too universally. There is so much variation that one needs to be very careful about applying these broad characterizations to any particular man or woman. I will agree that men tend to be more analytical using principles, while women tend to be more analytical using emotional relationships. I know some notable exceptions. Of course, men may use either good or bad principles to add to the mess. Similarly, women may want healthy emotional relationships or they may want very unhealthy ones. It may also be the case that the average man is less communicative in a relationship and that he is less likely to reveal his emotions to others. Sometimes people assume this means that a man simply does not feel as strongly as women. I am not sure this is the case, especially if one examines the differences in what they feel most strongly about. Since I admit to being unschooled in the field of psychology, I rely upon my own introspection and my personal observations of others. [sorry Jenna, this is really unscientific. However, if enough people were to talk forthrightly about their perspective, science would be greatly served.] With respect to my observations of others, my perspective is biased by the fact that I mostly have interactions with people of substantially greater intellect and accomplishment than the average person. Whatever I have learned seems to work well with almost everyone in one on one situations. I am, however, truly deficient in understanding crowd dynamics. I am often uneasy in a crowd. On the other hand, walking alone down a street in a bad part of town at night is easier. I see your point that women are more likely to view themselves and others from the standpoint of where they reside in a web of relationships. Actually, many men are more likely to do this than I am as well. I am very analytical in terms of principles. I have always thought and learned things this way, even as a child. I did not learn to read until late in the 3rd grade, in part because a whole word learning procedure was largely used. In part, because what we read had no principles embedded in it to learn. There was no reason for me to want to read it! I hated fairy tales, which is largely what my mother had read to me and my sister when we were very little. I used to ask her to read things that were real. I went through stages in learning various math and science subjects in which the ideas were slow to come into place, but then suddenly fell into place very well, as I established the principles in my mind for applying that subject. Formulas were nowhere near enough. I had to see how the ideas were related and develop strategies for problem-solving. Alright, so I am very analytical in terms of principles. Women have been known to tell me that I am therefore a cold, calculating machine. This is nonsense. When I have figured something out, I am more passionate about it than most people can afford to be about things. When I have figured out what I believe in and who I value, I am much more passionate about either than most people. As a boy, I cared deeply about my Mom and Dad and about my sisters and brother. I watched over my sisters and brother, I thought about them, I helped them learn, and tried to set a good example for them. They all seem to agree that I was a great brother. Among my friends, I always seemed to be the boy, teenager, and adult who was most concerned about them. Friendship always seemed to mean more to me than to them. At Brown, I spent lots of time helping other students with calculus, chemistry, and physics. In graduate school, I helped the newer or less capable graduate students a great deal. I was always a bit puzzled about why they were always so eager for my insights on their projects and so little interested in my project. The same was true when I worked for the Navy. Now, I still enjoy training young scientists and bringing in students for summer internships. I taught my wife, who was the youngest in her family, how to change diapers and feed a baby a bottle when Kirsten was born. She was soon cholicky and I used to walk with her on my shoulder for hours and read to her. This went on for about 5 months. As they grew up, my girls usually came to me for advice. They came to me to play with them, or to take them for a bike ride, or to spin their friends around in flying circles. They went to Anna for biology or art, but me for most other subjects. I am basically more nurturing by nature than many women are. I am more inclined than Anna or my two older girls to want to sit down and talk about problems. I have been more likely to praise the girls for something they have done. I give them more hugs and kisses than Anna. So, I am a problem-solver and a very analytical thinker, but this frees me to be more caring and more affectionate. Because my emotions are integrated with my analysis, I can afford to trust them and expend more effort on them. Of course, other people do not always reciprocate evenly, but I have generally found the response to be one giving more value than that I would have if I were primarily concerned about fairness. Which does bring up a subject that I have seen many girls obsess about. They seem to have too heightened a concern about fairness. I believe in the Trader Principle, but what is most important is that both parties should be better for the trade. It can be foolish to exercise too much concern for whether each party profited equally. I think little girls tend to suffer from this and I think adult women often do also. I will admit that some adult women are taken advantage of by some men and that does contribute to the problem. However, I have also seen many cases where adult men are taken advantage of by women, which it is presently politically incorrect to note. So, like many men, I have a tendency to think very analytically, but more so than the vast majority of men. Perhaps unlike them, I have very deep feelings both about causes, friends, and the people I love. Here, however, I would inject a strong note of caution. I think the feelings of many men are underestimated because they will not talk about them. When wives die first, men tend to die very soon after. I think men may actually have a stronger emotional tie to their wives than their wives have to them. When men go to war, it is often because they feel more strongly about freedom than women do. In war they often form very strong bonds with their buddies. Men make the workplace a bigger part of their lives than women do and the workplace is often treated as a game with rules that are not rich in valuing personal relationships. Part of the game is suppressing feelings. There are plenty of cases where this results in men actually allowing themselves less feeling, but I think there is a tendency to underestimate the strength of feelings and emotions that many men have. They aid this impression by not talking about them. I can understand the importance of personal relationships and understanding them. I understand the importance of loving and caring for good people. I am in a web of relationships and I know it. I also know that to manage relationships well and to generally guide us in our lives, we need to think analytically in terms of principles. We need to have this complete spectrum of knowledge. What we cannot afford to do is grant precedence to emotions which are not consistent with rational behavior. This is not to say that one should dump on the occasional unhealthy emotion held by a generally good person. I do think that it is a false dichotomy to say that one chooses between emotions and reason. One should choose reason with a set of rational emotions. Sure, this is not easy, but it should be the goal. As such, people should be able to talk constructively about their principles, their thinking skills, and about their emotions. In a healthier world, we would generally be more willing to do this than we are today. So, here once again, is my head stuck way out on the chopping block. I think it is inherently very difficult for any one unique individual to understand any other. It is probably especially hard when one is truly an individualist. When and where I have been able to have frank conversations with other people, I have often found it a fascinating learning experience. Most such cases of relatively frank talk still skirt a lot of guarded areas. Most people are reluctant to talk about some of the things that most differentiate themselves from others. A lot of individuality is therefore never apparent. So, here I offer some sense of some of my individuality. Some, only some, maybe far too much. Now what is that apostrophe doing in "daughter's" in that quote you selected Paul? Dumb mistake.

Dennis, I respect and share many of your sentiments about the importance of Ayn Rand to our lives. I share a sense of disappointment that her impact on our society was not greater than it has been. Your earlier post today was very moving. As for being an intellectual bully, I have seen you act like one on occasion, but you usually write rationally and with a respect for reason. I am not fool enough to think that you should be characterized broadly as an intellectual bully. There are some people in Objectivist circles who can be so characterized and you are not one of them. Historically, no one person, even Ayn Rand, is going to transform the culture of the world. Her work is a great start in that process, but the contributions of many more people will be needed before her general viewpoint will be broadly accepted throughout America, let alone the rest of the world. Historically, such changes always take more than 50 years. War is awful, but sometimes the consequences of not fighting a war are more awful. It is very immoral to fight a war without a rational purpose or set of purposes. When the war is fought, it must be fought in a manner consistent with the rational purposes to be achieved by fighting it. Often in war, the rational purposes dictate that one should act in a manner to minimize, in varying degrees, the deaths of enemy non-combatants. How much to minimize their deaths is a complex decision to be made based on one's purpose and on the cost in additional deaths to one's own people. The purpose has to be worth achieving at the cost of some deaths to one's own people, or one would not rationally have gone to war in the first place or one would not continue it. It also bears repeating that few American soldiers want to kill women and children. If our government established a policy that our soldiers are to kill every woman and child who might pose any degree of threat to them or who may simply be inconveniently in the wrong place at the wrong time, then our military would quickly become completely demoralized and cease functioning as an effective fighting force. Historically, there have been armies that have been able to function with such a degree of ruthlessness, but no American army has ever done so (though some small units have and John Kerry seems to have) and none ever could without a radical change in American character. In the Iraq occupation, one hears of many cases in which American soldiers seem to be individually motivated to help, even at some risk to themselves, Iraqi men, women, and children. I would say that an American Objectivist government and armed forces could not be completely ruthless in this way either. Respecting life generally, and human life in particular, is a very Objectivist ethical principle. Given that my life is my ultimate value, it is natural to respect the lives of others as well. This respect for the lives of others is not altruism. Indeed, I would argue that altruism respects the life of no one, since it never respects the life of the individual. An ethics that does respect the life of the individual must then respect the life of every individual. Of course, we might respect the life of a given individual more than that person does himself and we might be forced into doing battle with them. War is a sad business, but sometimes a necessary one.

ARI fairly consistently opts for the dramatic, rather than the rational policy. They like being the outside critic. They enjoy taking every opportunity to kick someone in the groin. Jeanie Merrifield Starr is just too rational. She recognizes that of course President Bush is not an Objectivist. If he were, he would not have been elected President. Of course he is not a genius. Geniuses have too many ideas that are not shared by the majority of voters. They tend also to produce explanations that are too long for a respectable soundbite. Bush is at least reasonably sensible and he has had some experience in business, which is largely the business of America. One cannot say that either of his two opponents had or has any common sense or any reasonable business experience. There is every reason to believe that they are less intelligent. On the oil cost issue, she might have added that Iran and Russia are both frightening the market with signs of being unstable oil and gas sources. She could point to the failure to produce and ship sufficient oil out of Iraq, which admittedly is something Pres. Bush should push harder on. Then on the demand side, China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Brazil are all using substantially more oil now than just a few years ago. Clearly, some combination of oil conservation, price increases, refinery expansion, new oil sources, and alternative energy sources is needed. Most of us, though not the environmentalists, hope industry will find the means to limit the price increases. Increased oil taxes will be clearly counterproductive. I think it is absurd that we are not drilling for oil off the coasts of Florida and California, as well as ANWR. Off shore oil spills from drilling platforms are now more rare than those from ships bringing in oil from afar. The caribou herds have grown greatly since the Alaska oil pipeline was built. If they had shrunk, this would have been blamed on the pipeline. Since they have grown greatly, has any environmentalist stepped forward to say that we should build more pipelines because they are good for the caribou? While I expect there is little causal connection between the growth of the herds and the pipeline, there is a connection between other pipelines and triving animal populations. I worked on pipelines in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas in the summers when I was in college. Prairie dogs and rattlesnakes love living near the pipelines. They provide some warmth in the winter! Copperheads and scorpions love the pump houses in the oil fields and any other shelter that provides shade. Offshore platforms support thriving life systems around them. If environmentalists loved animals and plants, they would be all for pipelines and offshore platforms. What they really love is primitivism. ARI forgets that the Democrat presidential candidates have to play to the strongly socialist wing of their party and the Republican has to play to the more evangelical Christians in their party. Neither is good, but the breadth of the control program the socialists want is much greater than is that of the radical Christians. We have a pretty thorough acceptance of the idea of separation of Church and State now, especially in the courts. On the other hand, where is our protection from socialism? It should be the limits on government clearly spelled out in the Constitution, but we have long since interpreted those protections into uselessness. Christianity is an old problem, but church attendance is ever decreasing. Many of the faster growing churches are those that retain rather little Christian dogma. Christianity hangs on mostly because many women embrace it and because a rational ethics has not been sold to the public to replace it. Religion has become awkwardly feminized. It is hardly the wave of the future. I have been explicitly told by many people that they teach their children the ethics of Christianity because they know of no alternative. Many a parent is not enthusiastic about this, especially many fathers. Socialism, more as an unnamed fascism, is still on the rise or at least a greater challenge. Communism is less favored than it was 20 years ago, but that has not turned the tide very substantiallly against the fascist variant or the onward march of Progressivism. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton carry a strong tradition yet that government can and should address every perceived problem. Clearly Bush II and the Republican House and Senate are largely guilty also. ARI would have more influence if they were more constructive in their manner of offering advice. However, since they have chosen to cut themselves off from the libertarians in the political sphere, there is no political group they can even try to influence. After the Christian right, the strongest group among Republicans is one that is largely libertarian. It would make much more sense if ARI were to try to help this group to grow. But, as we know, they are the constant contrarians. It would be interesting to try to actually study the party affiliation of most of the people who have read Ayn Rand's books and have been influenced by them, but who do not call themselves Objectivists. Most of those I know of are Republicans. Where does ARI think they are? But, of course, ARI probably views them much as Muslims view someone who left the Muslim religion. Off with their heads! Behead the heretics!

Our Objectivist Artemis has a problem. The Greek goddess was fond of bow and arrow and her arrows flew straight and true. Our Objectivist Artemis is armed only with a boomerang. She launched it dozens of times at David Kelley and it always missed him. In the end, it struck her, over and over. This Objectivist Artemis is not very goddess-like. The Objectivist God is the best in man and woman. In addition to many Objectivists who better realize the best man and woman are capable of, I know many non-Objectivists with higher levels of achievement and better character than this posturing Artemis. In particular, the men she has recently expended so much effort to bring down are clearly more god-like than she is.

Paul, Of course the requirement to keep John Galt a mysterious figure rather mitigates against our coming to know him well. It is too bad that Ayn Rand's greatest hero was so little developed as a character and a personality. Perhaps Atlas Shrugged, the greatest story ever told, always needed a sequel. Our merry band of heroes returns to the world and they rebuild it as it ought to be. How do they do this? They start industries from stratch, they train new workers, they set up schools to provide a proper education, they re-establish strictly limited governments, they fight off the dregs of the old guard, and they deal with the occasional natural calamity. They do all these things working together as rational men committed to the Trader Principle. And, of course, our excessively large number of bachelor men find rational and spirited romantic partners. A good writer sure would sell a lot of books with this story. Of course, the ARI crowd would claim the writer was taking advantage of Ayn Rand's work. In fact, however, we always take advantage of the great minds who come before us. The author's response should probably be that you are welcome to set yourself the same task and build a different story. In fact, one might see this become a broad novel genre like the mystery novel or the romance novel, as many such stories are written. This would be a bit like science fiction, but starting with technology not too different than that of the current world. I never liked reading about James Taggart, Orren Boyle, and Cuffy Meigs anyway. I wanted to spend all of my time with John, Dagny, Francisco, Ellis, Hank, and Ken anyway.

Hi Jenna, I was not sure whether the Fundamentalist quote was meant to apply to me or not, but I was actually leaning toward thinking that you had not intended it that way. However, my own daughters tend to perceive me somewhat as a fundamentalist and I acknowledge that that has not had entirely good consequences. They have viewed my passion for my values as somewhat excessive, including such things as why would I start my own laboratory when it sometimes meant that they would have to do without the clothes and fine housing that many of their friends had in wealthy Montgomery County, MD? Why must it be so important to you Dad to be so independent that we have wear ratty 1 year-old shoes and use a winter jacket a second winter? They also had to worry more about how they would pay for college than did their friends. Was I fair to them? Perhaps not, though I believe that the example of finding your passion and then pursueing it and making yourself happy was a good one for them. The hardships were really small ones that probably actually made them stronger. But I could be wrong. I will be interested to hear what they think looking back when they are 35 years old. My father was a career naval aviator, so when I was growing up, we moved on average about every 2 years. I was the oldest and my Dad was often away for long stretches of time on cruises in the Mediterrean Sea, the Pacific, and the Carribean Sea. I started cutting the lawn when I was 8, along with taking the trash out and scrubbing the kitchen and bathroom floors and the bathtubs. I understood what my Dad was doing and I was proud of him. I also understood that between me and my two sisters (when I was eight), my Mom needed some serious help. I was proud to be able to help her as much as I could. My sister of 16 months younger age, felt put upon to help wash dishes and help watch our littler sister, who was then 3. I also helped with these tasks, but my sister did more of the watching our littler sister than I did. She hated the moves and leaving her friends. I thought the moves were a new adventure, even though I also had to leave friends. My sister looks back and thinks she had a bleak childhood, while I look back and see adventures, a close and loving family, and an enhanced development intellectually and an acceptance of responsibility. I felt I accomplished important things even as a child and helped my Dad in his accomplishments. While my sister's evaluation is one of suffering, she nonetheless was strengthened by the experience in many of the same ways I was. I think she should be careful of what she wishes. I am more proud of my daughters than they understand. I love them more than they understand. I think that as they have left the teenage years behind, they are coming more and more to understand these things. I should think your father would be very proud of you Jenna, though you must have worried him nigh onto death during some of your earlier adventures. I very rarely have bad dreams, but I had a few about my daughters being in harm's way that caused me to wake up dripping sweat. I have never had that happen when I was in danger in a dream. I think it is very common for parents to love their children much more than their children understand.

Phil, You might be wrong or you might be a little wrong, but you are no monster. Without question, you are one of the good guys. You have my best wishes, but pay close attention to whether anyone actually cares when you deliver a rational argument. At some point, you have to draw the line, if only because your own time is valuable. Barbara has made some very good points on why your effort may be counterproductive, however. You win points for the courage of your convictions, which may come with a dose of stubborness! I have some understanding of just plain old stubborness myself.

Barbara, Believing is very powerful, whether it be from faith or from knowledge. Believing in the power of reason has the critical advantage that our belief is consistent with reality, so I hope most people will one day adhere to it. Now, speaking of people I admire, as I am shamelessly wont to do, you have been a wonderful revelation. I do find myself wishing that the many burdens of history were lifted from your shoulders so your spirit could really soar. Of course you are fascinating in part for the history and you learned much in your years with Ayn Rand. You really cannot yank such things out of a person and be sure to leave the person essentially intact and functional. But, those years were both wonderful and burdensome in ways no one else can imagine. I find myself trying to picture you with the wonderful and without the burdens. I wish it could be so, since you deserved to have had better. You have admirably carried those burdens for a very long time. You are an incredibly strong woman and very wise as well.

Yes, I understand very well how much time goes into responses. Yours are always so well written that it is clear you write with care and precision. This takes time. All the more reason for me to treasure your responses. And I do. So, if you can factor in the pleasure of giving me so much pleasure and send the occasional extra response along, well, I hope you will know it is appreciated. It is a great pleasure in itself to have a compliment accepted so graciously. It confirms that you are fully the self-confident and proud woman it gives me the pleasure to think you are. You would think that more people would be Objectivists so they would feel free to tell people who have earned their admiration that they admire them. This is one of life's greatest pleasures.

Hi, Jenna. Well, I never thought of myself as a fundamentalist. In Objectivist circles I am condemned more often for my tolerance. But, my daughters did tend to see me somewhat as a fundamentalist, which I should have worked harder to avoid. They also felt the pressure to belong among their teenage friends and to be accepted by their teachers in one of the more leftist school systems in America. So there was a bit too much pressure between choosing Dad or choosing friends and teachers, which can be a hard issue for teenage girls. You are just full of good quotes. But you did not attribute this quote, so I take it that this is an original quote of your own. Or is it in common usage? Anyway, correct me when I am wrong and I will try hard to see my error. I will be grateful for the assistance. As you well know, this world is much too complex for one mind to fully understand. I am delighted that your fine mind is a helpful ally to mine in this great quest.

It sounds to me that you and your wife are on a good course for working with your children. I tried always to encourage my daughters to think for themselves and they do a comparatively good job of it. None of my girls believes in God, though they tend to think that I should never mention being an atheist or ask anyone why they believe in God. If I know that they are religious, then it is very impolite of me to discuss any problem with religion in their presence. It is not, however, impolite for them to discuss religion in my presence. There is no two-way street here. My daughter's are generally fairly rational, but they do frequently also express more concern for the feelings of others than they do for a rational analysis of a particular problem. On one very memorable occasion while traveling, my wife and my three daughters ganged up on me for hours, which can happen when you are the only male around. When I expressed my unhappiness with this situation in rational terms, they were completely and totally uninterested. They were, in fact, heartless. Finally, after much frustration, I told them how this behavior made me feel. Soon, they were all ears and they finally gave a damn about how their behavior had affected me. While my wife and daughters now understood how I felt and they responded with love, I also felt a great disappointment that behavior that was clearly unprincipled and irrational could not be discussed on the basis of rational principles with any success. On the positive side, my daughters are also life-long learners. My oldest daughter has started a demanding career and she is doing well. She has a degree in engineering and she spent a lot of time with me helping out in my laboratory when in high school and the earlier part of college. She is a hard worker and has a great interest in business. At the U. of Texas and in high school, she picked up some tendency to view politics from a leftist stance, but I think that will fade as she continues to see more of the real world. I see some signs of that now and she has been out of school only about 16 months. On the other hand, it was only two summers ago when she said I was a racist because I oppose Affirmative Action as a form of racism. She also saw nothing wrong with most of the activities of the Federal government except subsidies for business and the Iraq war. About the time of our Affirmative Action discussion, Kirsten complained that it was frustrating to talk to me because I was always right. I told her that, no, I am not always right. When I am wrong, I just want you to explain to me rationally how I am wrong. Her response was, "No, Daddy, you really are always right. It is so frustrating." So, some part of our differences are just her growing up and needing to assert her independence. In time, she will turn more and more to what she may already largely understand to be right. I understand that I simply need to give her the time she needs. She read The Fountainhead and liked it. She read Atlas Shrugged up to Galt's speech and then stopped. She is an impatient girl and always has been. She is an overachieving efficiency expert in anything she does. She plans to get an MBA and I expect she will make serious money. My youngest daughter is studying biotechnology in the Honors Program at Rochester Institute of Technology. She was very shy in some contexts in high school, but she is really thriving at RIT. She called Monday night and we talked for a long while about a Chemistry Laboratory experiment she had done. While in high school, she was always the rational core of her group of girlfriends. Part of this meant that she was their chief advisor and she chose pretty good friends and helped steer them away from problems fairly wisely. She also had 4s or 5s on 9 AP tests and entered RIT as a sophomore. Katie has two quarters of 4.0 grades, but does have a bit too much willingness to tell a teacher what the teacher wants to hear. My middle daughter has recently figured out that she wants to be a photographer and is now building a portfolio. She gave up on the idea of being a painter, which she says she has neither the flare for or the necessary sweep. She reads a lot and has many internet friends. She has been slower to develop and she thinks she is less intelligent than her sisters, but in reality she is much more intelligent than she thinks. She learns things more slowly, but she develops many good insights. She does a fair bit of critical thinking. Her friends tend to be intelligent, but live a bit on the wild side. So, I have a great deal to respect in my daughters for all that they are not Objectivists. They are pretty good people. Kirsten and Katie both have nice friends and a nice boyfriend. I keep my fingers crossed a bit yet for Karen, but I think she will be fine. In retrospect, there are many things I could have done better. But, I have been pretty lucky in that they chose pretty good paths for themselves, even though their Dad was always working long, long hours. They did feel rather neglected, though I was always a very loving father when I was with them. They did see me as a bit of a hard taskmaster, though I do not see that myself. It seems to me that they were their own taskmasters. Paul, you got me a favorite subject, my daughters. Sorry if I have gone on too long. I sure wish you and your wife great success with your son and daughter. Raising children is exhilarating. I loved raising my daughters much more than they realize. I can remember being astounded at how they learned when they were very young. The human mind is amazing and there is nothing more fascinating than watching one develop in a baby through adulthood. And, with three daughters, I have had a wonderful lot of great hugs. Now, the teenage years can be filled with both many highs and lows, I think especially with girls, but weather it. Kirsten called tonight and we had a great time talking. She is buying a house in Houston, while working on a long-term assignment in Boston. She sounded so happy, my heart is still warmed by the thought.

Paul, I think you have the Big Picture of math right. Another nicely done post. Of course, the sets of rules for the manipulation of quantities need not produce results that have anything to do with the real world, so math has no concept of quantity without induction and it has no known consequences without inductive testing for application after the manipulations of the quantities are completed. So, math both starts with induction and ends with induction. This sure gives induction a central role in math, at least for anyone who wants it to play a role in understanding reality.

My day is made. It is 2 AM and I am sure this whole day is going to be just wonderful. Ellen, so bright, so valiant, so spirited, and such a sound thinker, has praised a note! Charles pauses. He waits to slowly settle back into his seat after floating for awhile. Seriously, I seriously and happily admire you. Thanks for your note, but still more thanks for the pleasure reading many other of your notes has given me. I agree that Ayn Rand was not going to knowingly work professionally with Nathaniel Branden while he had a sexual relationship with Patrecia. The journal entries are quite revealing in other ways also, but Valliant's analysis is thoroughly misdirecting and annoying everywhere. By the way, the desire to burn the book is strong when I am in the immediate process of unraveling a Valliant argument. It does not last long after I put the argument aside. A life of loving books would actually make burning a book a very real sacrilege. Besides, I might need a reminder someday about Ayn Rand's journal entries.

Jenna, You are both a quick and critical thinker. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is a pleasure reading you and, well, you're quite the spice.

This is just to put myself on record again, as Ellen and Michael did above, that PARC is a world-leading example of fallacious arguments and misdirection. It is the work of a masterful magician of words who knows how to lead a willing soul where they want to go. I would be surprised if this man does not have a substantial record of convicting innocent men in his real job. And yet, a thinking and a questioning reader can readily unravel all the errors of thinking. Surely, one has the right to expect that anyone who understands the basics of Objectivism should have the skills to understand basic logic and the experience to recognize rhetorical sleigh of hand after being constantly barraged by such techniques by the liberal media and the effete intelligentsia. Haven't we all had to learn to read very critically over the years? The valiant reader can detect the constant errors. In fact, reading PARC is a massively depressing experience. I can think of nothing more depressing than: the disappointment in discovering error after error, when one is looking for rational analysis,the revulsion of having to deal with constant dishonesty, since the mastery of the misdirection is sufficiently clear that one cannot believe the errors are innocent, the disappointment in seeing many Objectivists who are rather intelligent being taken in, and the disgust that this word magician is so presumptuous as to believe that you cannot see damn straight through his game.The reader does need to be seriously valiant to make a constant effort to detect each and every error, to deal with the seriously depressing experiences I listed above, and to resist the first-time impulse to become a book burner, despite being a life-long book lover.

Philip, We have often fought together for civility and honesty in the heated discussions of SOLO HQ and SOLO Passion. You should know that I fully agree with you on the issues of carrying on a civil and fruitful discussion with someone worthy of the assumption of intellectual honesty. For a number of practical reasons, one may even choose to treat someone unworthy of these considerations as though they were worthy. In any case, one should never oversimplify someone else's argument when trying to refute it. Generally, it is foolish to call someone a name, but there are conditions when seriously negative traits do need to be noted. One should not jump to moral condemnation without thorough evidence that it is justified. One should be cautious about attributing actions to conspiracy theories and hidden motives. So, I agree with your statements 1 and 3. I think that statements 2 and 4 require some refinement. I have read about a dozen essays that Diana Hsieh has written which attack Dr. David Kelley and TOC. I have seen such a pattern of context dropping, strawman re-statements of David's arguments, strange interpretations of words, unjustified assumptions of a consistently negative nature, and generally poor reasoning, though dressed in the form of reasoning, that I judge Diana to be massively motivated by hatred against David and TOC. She is so thoroughly wrongheaded and dedicated to it, that I have come to the conclusion that she has mental health issues. Feel free to defend her if you wish and I will give you a respectful hearing, but it is my assessment that you will have to trek up Mt. Everest in this without water and without oxygen. She has built up a very impressive case for her troubled mind. There are some people who are not open to rational argument. Diana is one and Holly Valiant is another very clear example. James Valiant has a better facade, but it is merely that. Casey Fahey is another of that class. It simply does not matter how many pearls you might cast at their feet, they will only see muck. They are rationalists, not rational people. They are playing games, not living in reality. Now, note that I am saying this in a Rant section of OL. This is my honest evaluation after spending hours of reading their writings and after discussing a number of issues with most of them. None of them are stupid, but they are very wrongheaded because they have severe emotional problems. You have dealt with them enough that you are entitled to having your own opinion. I am not trying to change their minds on issues any longer because I am sure that I understand the futility of the effort. A clear and rational argument will not have any positive effect. My time is just too valuable to be spent in carrying on such purposeless discussions with them. Bluntly, I would much rather spend my time in discussions with people like you, Barbara, Michael, Paul, Jenna, Roger, and Ellen. I also have a family and a demanding business to run. I love solving complex materials problems. I enjoy training young scientists. I like writing and I like reading also. I like physical exercise, which I get too little of these days. I have seriously too little time to do the many things I want to do. Value judgments must be made when you are a mortal man of finite resources. Time is my most finite resource.

Barbara wrote: Succinct and well-stated. It is rather tiring to hear the misuse of the evolution argument against the morality or "optimality" of homosexuality over and over, despite the numerous times this counter-argument has been made. I would also point out that the argument that only a small fraction of the population is homosexual, therefore it is sub-optimal to be homosexual bears little fruit. One might as well argue that it is suboptimal to be a physicist or an artist because only a small part of the population is either a physicist or an artist. Indeed, given that many women discriminate against men in the sciences or against men who are atheists and Objectivists, we might use a similar argument to say that it is really sub-optimal to be a physicist, atheist, Objectivist. But, it should be clear to us (those who respect reality, are atheists, and Objectivists) that this is not a convincing argument that no one should be or want to be a physicist, atheist, Objectivist.

Roger, I cannot address your question with respect to Peikoff and mathematics as a deductive field directly. I would observe that mathematics operates as systems of essentially logical rules applied to abstract quantitities, wherein there is a realm in which mathematics is deductive. The applicability of any given set of mathematical rules to informing us about reality is entirely inductive, however. In other words, we only know whether a theory of mathematics rules can be applied to order and explain our knowledge of real entities and their actions on an inductive basis. Without informing our use of mathematics inductively, math is just a game people play for their entertainment. It becomes useful and essential only when we test its use inductively. So, if you define mathematics very narrowly, you can say it is deductive and not inductive. If you wish to include its use for describing reality in a generous measure, then it is heavily inductive as well as deductive. Academic mathematics departments can be very oriented toward only deductive concerns, but an Applied Mathematics department, or engineers, or most scientists, must be very concerned about the inductive evaluative side of mathematics. Since I am not aware that Peikoff has told us where this boundary is with respect to his statements, I would not quibble with him on this issue. However, I am biased in the direction of thinking that math has its great value as a tool for organizing, predicting, and explaining knowledge about reality. There is a caveat here with respect to explaining reality however, since it really may only explain in the context of organizing and predicting in the context that it works well with respect to our inductive knowledge. Of course, others will say that applying math is the realm of science, but there is plenty of room for applied mathematicians and for mathematical scientists in some sort of boundary area.

Once again Diana has latched onto a simplistic idea and maneuvered it to a false conclusion. She is a master of wrongheadedness. Orthodoxy has also come to have a great deal of appeal to her, so it is not surprising that her imagination is crippled when it comes to dealing with a tradition-loaded subject such as homosexuality. It has been widely observed that Diana has an insatiable appetite for being the center of attention. Perhaps this also makes homosexuals suboptimal since they do not hunger for her sexually. By her Hsiehcological evaluation, this makes homosexuals suboptimal. It most certainly is not known that homosexuality is an idea that people somehow get when they are young. How can she even seriously consider that it is? First, it does not even operate in one's mind as an idea. If it is not, then any simple argument that it would have to be an innate idea cannot follow. To justify describing it as unfortunate and suboptimal requires a value argument in addition. Some or many people are probably homosexual by virtue of their biochemical attributes. This has nothing to do with an innate idea any more than the fact that some people are heterosexual is the result of an innate idea. It is very reasonable to believe that heterosexuals are the result of their biochemical attributes also. If one's sexuality is substantially attributable to one's biochemistry, then it is also reasonable to suspect that some people may have biochemistries that are sufficiently intermediate in nature that they can be attracted to both sexes. These people may be bisexual and again, this is not due to their claiming that they have an innate idea. They may be in a greater position to exercise choice in the issue of who they will have sex with and they may develop ideas on this choice, but these ideas are not innate either. This blogger certainly has an extreme Hsiehcology. She is perhaps Objectivism's ultimate wrongheaded prolemicist. Incredibly, she is admired by far more people than my benevolent mind can fathom.

Michael, I agree that President Bush has made some serious errors. He has not vetoed Congresses excess and unconstitutional spending. He has created some bad new government entitlement programs. He has not been very effective in explaining how his tax cuts have improved the economy and given us more freedom. He has not been as effective in explaining that Iraq declared and prosecuted war against us. He has not been effective in getting the oil pumping and shipped again from Iraq, which is badly needed by both Iraq and the rest of the economically expanding world, especially the US, eastern Europe, India, and China. I also have concerns about the Patriot Act and I oppose any move to amend the Constitution to define marriage as being only between two members of the opposite sex. But, I do not think he is making a practice of lying to us. He, not surprisingly since he was elected, is not an Objectivist or a thorough-going libertarian. He also is not a thorough-going socialist, post-modernist, anti-business biased, anti-success biased, or environmentalist President. The major alternatives in the last two elections were. On balance, I think he is a better than average President. To be sure, the standard is nowhere near as high as it should be.

Wow, the nutritious pun exchange between Roger and Phil stuffed a calorie overload into my laugh mechanism. Should you have some concern for whether others of us can sustain such over-fueled fits of laughter? Now someone is going to call me an altruist again!