Writer or Philosopher?

[Dragonfly]

Ok folks, I'm back. Now I have to wade through hundreds of posts, so that will take some time...

Michael, you're missing Bob's point. Rand may not have mentioned a perpetuum mobile explicictly, but the Galt motor is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. That she didn't realize that is just an illustration that she had zero knowledge of physics. Now physically impossible devices may be used in science fiction, but a good sf author would be more careful and would use at least describe something not completely implausible, but he would never touch the laws of thermodynamics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, you're missing Bob's point. Rand may not have mentioned a perpetuum mobile explicictly, but the Galt motor is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. That she didn't realize that is just an illustration that she had zero knowledge of physics. Now physically impossible devices may be used in science fiction, but a good sf author would be more careful and would use at least describe something not completely implausible, but he would never touch the laws of thermodynamics.

Dragonfly,

Rand did mention "perpetual motion machine" explicitly, bashing the notion. Twice (at least). I quoted this above (Post 22). For the record, here are the sections of Atlas Shrugged that best deal with Galt's motor:

(p. 270 - Dagny speaking on discovering the partial motor and partial notes:)

"It was the coil," she said. She felt as if her mind were racing, she could not keep up with all the things which a sudden blast had opened to her vision, and her words came hurtling against one another. "It was the coil that I noticed first—because I had seen drawings like it, not quite, but something like it, years ago, when I was in school—it was in an old book, it was given up as impossible long, long ago—but I liked to read everything I could find about railroad motors. That book said that there was a time when men were thinking of it—they worked on it, they spent years on experiments, but they couldn't solve it and they gave it up. It was forgotten for generations. I didn't think that any living scientist ever thought of it now. But someone did. Someone has solved it, now, today! … Hank, do you understand? Those men, long ago, tried to invent a motor that would draw static electricity from the atmosphere, convert it and create its own power as it went along. They couldn't do it. They gave it up." She pointed at the broken shape. "But there it is."

He nodded. He was not smiling. He sat looking at the remnant, intent on some thought of his own; it did not seem to be a happy thought.

"Hank! Don't you understand what this means? It's the greatest revolution in power motors since the internal-combustion engine—greater than that! It wipes everything out—and makes everything possible. To hell with Dwight Sanders and all of them! Who'll want to look at a Diesel? Who'll want to worry about oil, coal or refueling stations? Do you see what I see? A brand-new locomotive half the size of a single Diesel unit, and with ten times the power. A self-generator, working on a few drops of fuel, with no limits to its energy. The cleanest, swiftest, cheapest means of motion ever devised.

(p. 661 - Quentin Daniels speaking:)

"Miss Taggart, I had been working on it for months, on that one particular hypothesis, and the more I worked, the more hopeless it seemed to become. I'd been in my laboratory for the last two days, trying to solve a mathematical equation that looked impossible. I felt I'd die at that blackboard, but wouldn't give up. It was late at night when he came in. I don't think I even noticed him, not really. He said he wanted to speak to me and I asked him to wait and went right on. I think I forgot his presence. I don't know how long he stood there, watching me, but what I remember is that suddenly his hand reached over, swept all my figures off the blackboard and wrote one brief equation. And then I noticed him! Then I screamed—because it wasn't the full answer to the motor, but it was the way to it, a way I hadn't seen, hadn't suspected, but I knew where it led! I remember I cried, 'How could you know it?'—and he answered, pointing at a photograph of your motor, 'I'm the man who made it in the first place.' And that's the last I remember, Miss Taggart—I mean, the last I remember of my own existence, because after that we talked about static electricity and the conversion of energy and the motor."

"We talked physics all the way down here," said Galt.

(p. 963 - Galt's speech:)

Like the man who discovered the use of steam or the man who discovered the use oil, I discovered a source of energy which was available since the birth of the globe, but which men had not known how to use except as an object of worship, of terror and of legends about a thundering god. I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living.

From Dagny's description above, it certainly does sound like a perpetual motion machine, but from Galt's words about "a source of energy" that "men had not known how to use except as an object of worship," it sounds a great deal like energy extraction and conversion, not creation. In other words, the machine did not make the energy, but obtained it in a vast quantity and converted it.

At any rate, none of this indicates that Rand was unfamiliar with the laws of thermodynamics. On the contrary, the way it is presented, it appears that she postulated a discovery that overturned one law (at least), indicated by Quentin struggling with equations and Dagny saying that men had abandoned the idea as impossible. And from what I know of science, overturning a scientific law through experiments and postulating another, then building things, this is simply the way it happens. All you need is one case where it is different for a new discovery to take place. (Shades of Popper's falsifiability principle! Or try quantum physics.)

Saying that for Galt's motor to work, it had to violate the second law of thermodynamics is one thing. Saying that this is proof that Rand knew nothing of physics is just plain silly, especially in the way she presented it. But anyway, what's wrong with a novelist projecting that a law of physics can be overturned, especially when scientists have done precisely that for centuries? They call it scientific progress. Anyway, your comment about what good SF authors do shows that you do not read much science fiction.

Just for your amusement, here is some information on Orbo, a device that the developers claim to have even gone BEYOND Galt's motor. It supposedly creates energy, not just converts energy from the atmosphere. It has been announced that it is now in process of validation by 22 scientists, which is scheduled to be concluded at the end of this year. I presume the results will be published.

Steorn Orbo

There is a Developer's Forum that I found impossible to access from the website, but there is a general forum open to the public that is available, but hard to find (awkwardly linked): Steorn Forum

There was supposed to be a demonstration in July 2007, but it was canceled, and the bashing started (and there is a lot more out there): Perpetual motion machine hits 'technical' snag

The Rise and Fall of the Steorn Orbo Free Energy Machine

The following bash (a few days later) provides a video of the public explanation by Steorn's CEO for the failure—bearings—and an announcement that there will be another demonstration sometime in the future.

Snake Oil Update: Orbo Demo Cancelled, CEO Explains

Randi called it a farce back in August 2006: YET ANOTHER FREE-ENERGY FARCE

Here is a September 5, 2007 video of Thieu Knapen, CEO of Kinetron, endorsing the gadget with a small demonstration:

Here are some Randi Forum posts bashing the endorsement: Respected Engineer Validates Steorn's Free EnergyTechnology

Here is a discussion of the video and even some posts by Steorn's CEO (Sean McCarthy). There are posts bashing and others that are supportive: Knapen's Video of the Kinetica Toy

I must say that my BS detector is going off on this from the way it is being presented to the public (and not necessarily from the bashing), but there are reports coming at the end of the year. I am curious to see what they will say. McCarthy did claim that he did not want to release the technology to the public domain yet and that is understandable with any new technology. But then, of course, there will be the acid test: seeing something actually work with Orbo as a power source.

If this is a con, it will not be able to be maintained much longer. Qua con, if it proves to be one, they are playing some kind of clever high-stakes game because there is an announcement that acceptance of all funding has been suspended until after validation.

Here is a cute link I culled from another forum that was discussing Orbo, but now this is getting really off topic: The Physical Principles of Unworkable Devices

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Ok folks, I'm back. Now I have to wade through hundreds of posts, so that will take some time...

Michael, you're missing Bob's point. Rand may not have mentioned a perpetuum mobile explicictly, but the Galt motor is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. That she didn't realize that is just an illustration that she had zero knowledge of physics. Now physically impossible devices may be used in science fiction, but a good sf author would be more careful and would use at least describe something not completely implausible, but he would never touch the laws of thermodynamics.

Is the warp drive engine or transporter in Star Trek more scientifically plausible than Galt's motor? Does their scientific implausibility detract from Star Trek as enjoyable science fiction?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Ok folks, I'm back. Now I have to wade through hundreds of posts, so that will take some time...

Michael, you're missing Bob's point. Rand may not have mentioned a perpetuum mobile explicictly, but the Galt motor is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. That she didn't realize that is just an illustration that she had zero knowledge of physics. Now physically impossible devices may be used in science fiction, but a good sf author would be more careful and would use at least describe something not completely implausible, but he would never touch the laws of thermodynamics.

Is the warp drive engine or transporter in Star Trek more scientifically plausible than Galt's motor? Does their scientific implausibility detract from Star Trek as enjoyable science fiction?

Martin

No. No. But AS is at a much higher level than ST. You have made a good point, however. Each of us has his/her individual perspectives on how we react to a work of art. In spite of any criticism here and there on OL, no one I know of has yet to express strong negative thoughts about AS in toto. Quite the contrary.

--Brant

Edited September 9, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The idea behind bashing Rand's knowledge of math and science is ultimately part of the "science invalidates philosophy" argument. Pointing to her fiction as some kind of proof of this is a stretch. Then there is the problem that her fiction does not exactly corroborate this (as I have shown with quotes). That is why there is always an uncharitable and overly-biased negative interpretation accompanying examples mentioned by those who want to prove it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant,

The idea behind bashing Rand's knowledge of math and science is ultimately part of the "science invalidates philosophy" argument. Pointing to her fiction as some kind of proof of this is a stretch. Then there is the problem that her fiction does not exactly corroborate this (as I have shown with quotes). That is why there is always an uncharitable and overly-biased negative interpretation accompanying examples mentioned by those who want to prove it.

Michael

Science does not invalidate philosophy so much as it overcomes some of the shortcomings of philosophy. By and large, philosophical systems are not empirically testable which makes them harder to glue to the real world.

Science is basically empirical (its correctness depends on its correspondence to the external world and its justification rests on quantitative experimentation and observation) although it makes heavy use of mathematics which in and of itself is non-empirical and a priori.

If you want to make an A-Bomb you do physics. If you want to decide if making an A-Bomb is the right thing to do you must do Ethics which is a branch of philosophy.

By and large, science (particularly physics) and philosophy address different sorts of questions in different ways, although there is an overlap in the domain of epistemology and an overlap in ontology. Another way of putting it, is that physics raises philosophical questions about what is and how we come to know what is, but physics is not primarily concerned with the meta-issues of knowledge and being in general.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 9, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

AR did enough technical research to make "Atlas" go except for someone unwilling to suspend disbelief. Bob suspended disbelief for that Spartan movie ("300") and enjoyed it and I assume he did much the same when he read "Atlas."

--Brant

I knew going in that -300- was based on an illustrated novel (aka comic book). I knew going in that it was not history. The movie was a blast and I enjoyed it for what it was.

I also enjoyed -Atlas Shrugged-. I took it as alternative time line fiction. A world that never was but might have been. Alternative time-line is my favorite fiction genre.

My annoyance with Rand is NOT with Rand the Novelist, but Rand the propounder and judge of ideas in domains she has not mastered. Rand was, for better or worse, in a position of intellectual leadership and many hung on her words and Pronouncements. Because she was in a leadership position, her misstatements concerning science and similar judgments made in her name, had potentially serious consequences. What she did was somewhat analogous to some intellectuals making Creationism respectable in the guise of Intelligent Design. Both are misleading and to a certain extent, they corrupt the Youth of Athens. I would stop short of forcing a cup of hemlock on either Rand or Peikoff. I have more issues with L.P. because he was thoroughly educated (he is a PhD) and ought to Know Better.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

What is your definition of philosophy? And your definition of science?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

What is your definition of philosophy? And your definition of science?

Michael

There are several sciences so I would not attempt a one size fits all definition of science. Physics is the systematic study and theorizing on the stuff of the world: energy, matter, motion, space, time.

I would not attempt to give a single definition of philosophy either, for the same reason.

Metaphysics: the study and characterization of being as such, in the general sense.

Epistemology: the study of how we come to know what we know, in the general sense.

I have a version of metaphysics/epistemology I use for myself: I call it Reality Lite:

1. There is an Out There out there.

2. We have sufficient wits to grasp and deal with some of what is Out There.

That puts me in the camp of those who deny the primacy of mind (to use the common parlance). What is Out There would be out there whether or not we exist and no matter what we think of what is Out There.

One of our problems is confusing a reification of what is Out There with what is Out There. The Word is not the Thing. The Map is not the Territory. The Description is not the Thing Described. The Concept/Category is not the Particular. We have to keep our internals in synchronization with what is Out There, but our internals is not what is Out There.

I find that any systematic philosophy much beyond Reality Lite is burdensome and wretched excess.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 9, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Brant,

The idea behind bashing Rand's knowledge of math and science is ultimately part of the "science invalidates philosophy" argument. Pointing to her fiction as some kind of proof of this is a stretch. Then there is the problem that her fiction does not exactly corroborate this (as I have shown with quotes). That is why there is always an uncharitable and overly-biased negative interpretation accompanying examples mentioned by those who want to prove it.

Michael

As seems fairly clear from the AS quotes you posted a bit earlier, the assumption of AS is that the motor somehow EXTRACTS energy from a source, in a way not previously understood. It is not a perpetual motion machine.

A characteristic of much (not all) science fiction is, well, science fiction. By which I mean extrapolations of current scientific knowledge in speculative directions. The modes of space travel in the Foundation series (notably the later volumes) provide illustrations of this. If one complains about such extrapolations, one is left wanting to read "science fact." That is a very different genre, more closely approximated by "hard science fiction."

Alfonso

[Dragonfly]

Rand did mention "perpetual motion machine" explicitly, bashing the notion. Twice (at least). I quoted this above (Post 22).

That's exactly the point: she bashed the notion of a perpetual motion machine without realizing that Galt's motor is an example of such a machine, showing she had little or no knowledge of physics.

From Dagny's description above, it certainly does sound like a perpetual motion machine, but from Galt's words about "a source of energy" that "men had not known how to use except as an object of worship," it sounds a great deal like energy extraction and conversion, not creation. In other words, the machine did not make the energy, but obtained it in a vast quantity and converted it.

What you forget is that the electrostatic energy density of the atmosphere is very low, so with a small device like Galt's motor you could only generate an extremely small current which would be completely useless. With such a device you can't just magically "extract" the electrostatic energy from elsewhere at the same time to get enough power, so obtaining a "vast quantity" of energy is impossible. Therefore even a small wind mill or solar cells would be much more efficient.

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand did mention "perpetual motion machine" explicitly, bashing the notion. Twice (at least). I quoted this above (Post 22).

That's exactly the point: she bashed the notion of a perpetual motion machine without realizing that Galt's motor is an example of such a machine, showing she had little or no knowledge of physics.

From Dagny's description above, it certainly does sound like a perpetual motion machine, but from Galt's words about "a source of energy" that "men had not known how to use except as an object of worship," it sounds a great deal like energy extraction and conversion, not creation. In other words, the machine did not make the energy, but obtained it in a vast quantity and converted it.

What you forget is that the electrostatic energy density of the atmosphere is very low, so with a small device like Galt's motor you could only generate an extremely small current which would be completely useless. With such a device you can't just magically "extract" the electrostatic energy from elsewhere at the same time to get enough power, so obtaining a "vast quantity" of energy is impossible. Therefore even a small wind mill or solar cells would be much more efficient.

Nothing you mention was missed. My point - "science fiction" is not equivalent to "science fact" or "hard reporting on science. No pretence is made to the effect that it is. We ought not evaluate things in Atlas Shrugged (or any other fiction) by the same criteria as if we were evaluating the scientific accuracy (or even possibility) of all things mentioned.

If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with. Rand even referred to AS as her "stunt novel" (darn it! can't find the cite on that) once - evidently she did not view everything in AS as being totally realistic. (There's an understatement for you...) I seem to recall her commenting on this in a Q&A period for a Ford Forum talk, but dont' remember the specifics (on how one might ACTUALLY choose a different course of action from that in AS).

Alfonso

Edited September 9, 2007 by Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Woah theah!

I have been doing a bit of reading about quantum physics. Are you telling me that some future discovery involving quantum physics cannot turn the world of mechanical physics on its head? If you want to go for actual possibilities, there is the path. It already did turn mechanical physics on its head once. Why can't future discoveries do it again?

This is not in the Tarot cards when the name "Ayn Rand" comes up?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with.

Alfonso,

I don't think that Dragonfly is bashing Atlas qua novel on the basis of Rand's lack of knowledge of physics, or that Ba'al (Bob Kolker) is either. They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics. There's no evidence in her writing that she did know much of anything on the subject, and none of the physicists I've known personally (including my husband) who had some conversation with her have thought she knew much physics. She learned a certain amount in doing research for a projected script on the making of the atom bomb, but hardly enough to qualify her as "informed."

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.

Ellen,

That is not what they have been alleging. They have been claiming that she knew NOTHING about physics and that the motor is proof because it was such a terrible blunder and is unequivocal proof that she never heard of the laws of thermodynamics, yada yada yada. Words like "ignoramus" are not used to depict someone who has done research.

They have sounded like Peikoff from the other side.

I personally don't get why there is a need to falsify reality to bash her. There are plenty of legitimate points to criticize.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with.

Alfonso,

I don't think that Dragonfly is bashing Atlas qua novel on the basis of Rand's lack of knowledge of physics, or that Ba'al (Bob Kolker) is either. They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics. There's no evidence in her writing that she did know much of anything on the subject, and none of the physicists I've known personally (including my husband) who had some conversation with her have thought she knew much physics. She learned a certain amount in doing research for a projected script on the making of the atom bomb, but hardly enough to qualify her as "informed."

Ellen

___

If the point made were just that Rand was not a physicist, and in fact had no great knowledge in the physical sciences in general, I would not have disagreed. I don't think this is what Dragonfly or Ba'al is really saying, however. They seem to be suggesting something much stronger, which is why my response is as it is. Now, if what they means is really what you say (or not), perhaps they can say so (or not).

Alfonso

[Alfonso Jones]

They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.

Ellen,

That is not what they have been alleging. They have been claiming that she knew NOTHING about physics and that the motor is proof because it was such a terrible blunder and is unequivocal proof that she never heard of the laws of thermodynamics, yada yada yada.

They sound like Peikoff from the other side.

Michael

Example: Ba'al said:

"My annoyance with Rand is NOT with Rand the Novelist, but Rand the propounder and judge of ideas in domains she has not mastered. Rand was, for better or worse, in a position of intellectual leadership and many hung on her words and Pronouncements. Because she was in a leadership position, her misstatements concerning science and similar judgments made in her name, had potentially serious consequences. What she did was somewhat analogous to some intellectuals making Creationism respectable in the guise of Intelligent Design. Both are misleading and to a certain extent, they corrupt the Youth of Athens. I would stop short of forcing a cup of hemlock on either Rand or Peikoff. I have more issues with L.P. because he was thoroughly educated (he is a PhD) and ought to Know Better. "

I think this is more than a little stronger than suggesting that "Ayn was not a physicist, nor did she have a high level of expertise in physics."

I CANNOT imagine anyone hanging on Rand's pronouncements in the area of science in the sense of assuming that because the motor appears in Atlas Shrugged, clearly it must be feasible, possible, etc... I would worry about the naivete of anyone who made that assumption - as I would worry about the fairness of anyone who thought that Rand INTENDED the plot device of the motor to be serious scientific extrapolation soundly grounded in hard science.

Alfonso

[Alfonso Jones]

They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.

They have sounded like Peikoff from the other side.

Interesting comparison.

Alfonso (smiling)

[Ellen Stuttle]

If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with.

Alfonso,

I don't think that Dragonfly is bashing Atlas qua novel on the basis of Rand's lack of knowledge of physics, or that Ba'al (Bob Kolker) is either. They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics. There's no evidence in her writing that she did know much of anything on the subject, and none of the physicists I've known personally (including my husband) who had some conversation with her have thought she knew much physics. She learned a certain amount in doing research for a projected script on the making of the atom bomb, but hardly enough to qualify her as "informed."

Ellen

___

If the point made were just that Rand was not a physicist, and in fact had no great knowledge in the physical sciences in general, I would not have disagreed. I don't think this is what Dragonfly or Ba'al is really saying, however. They seem to be suggesting something much stronger, which is why my response is as it is. Now, if what they means is really what you say (or not), perhaps they can say so (or not).

Alfonso

I expect they will say so (or not). They're both very capable of speaking for themselves. ;-) But I for one have certainly not been interpreting either of them to be bashing Rand as novelist because of Rand's lapses/lacks as philosopher/Grand Pronouncer (getting that second usage from Bob). The thing is that Rand made pronouncements about the state of modern thought in which she included the supposed progression to bankruptcy of the hard sciences. And Peikoff has been developing thoughts along these lines. The objection is to Rand's pontificating in areas where she wasn't qualified to be talking.

I'm a late bird, eastern time; Bob is an early bird; Dragonfly lives in Holland and it's currently early am his time. They'll probably both have further to say on the subject when they come back on-line. Since you're new to the list, and don't know the history of debates here, I just wanted to say that I do not read their quarrels with AR the way MSK interprets them. (Instead I agree that Rand engaged in talking out of school on subjects whereon she didn't have the background to be talking.)

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.

Ellen,

That is not what they have been alleging. They have been claiming that she knew NOTHING about physics and that the motor is proof because it was such a terrible blunder and is unequivocal proof that she never heard of the laws of thermodynamics, yada yada yada.

They sound like Peikoff from the other side.

Michael

Example: Ba'al said:

"My annoyance with Rand is NOT with Rand the Novelist, but Rand the propounder and judge of ideas in domains she has not mastered. Rand was, for better or worse, in a position of intellectual leadership and many hung on her words and Pronouncements. Because she was in a leadership position, her misstatements concerning science and similar judgments made in her name, had potentially serious consequences. What she did was somewhat analogous to some intellectuals making Creationism respectable in the guise of Intelligent Design. Both are misleading and to a certain extent, they corrupt the Youth of Athens. I would stop short of forcing a cup of hemlock on either Rand or Peikoff. I have more issues with L.P. because he was thoroughly educated (he is a PhD) and ought to Know Better. "

I think this is more than a little stronger than suggesting that "Ayn was not a physicist, nor did she have a high level of expertise in physics."

I CANNOT imagine anyone hanging on Rand's pronouncements in the area of science in the sense of assuming that because the motor appears in Atlas Shrugged, clearly it must be feasible, possible, etc... I would worry about the naivete of anyone who made that assumption - as I would worry about the fairness of anyone who thought that Rand INTENDED the plot device of the motor to be serious scientific extrapolation soundly grounded in hard science.

Alfonso

It's an attack on philosophy as such. Scientists see the world through the eyes of scientists and philosophers through philosophy and economists through "human action." In this case the scientists think to lecture the philosophers not just about science but about philosophy. Ayn Rand really didn't lecture the scientists except beware government largess for you cannot have two masters: truth and slavery. Nevertheless, these scientists cannot succeed except to the extent they are right.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since you're new to the list, and don't know the history of debates here, I just wanted to say that I do not read their quarrels with AR the way MSK interprets them. (Instead I agree that Rand engaged in talking out of school on subjects whereon she didn't have the background to be talking.)

Ellen,

This implies that I think Rand was an expert in everything on earth and I also think that she never made over-the-top statements about fields where she was little schooled. That's not correct. For example, I find the following pronouncement ridiculous ("What Is Capitalism?" from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 11, written in 1965):

The disintegration of philosophy in the nineteenth century and its collapse in the twentieth have led to a similar, though much slower and less obvious, process in the course of modern science.

All one has to do is look around, even back then, to see that this was false. There are a number of such statements, including her own field of writing and philosophy, and I have been explicit where I disagree.

I just find words like "ignoramus" and "zero knowledge of physics" and so forth pretty clear and not needing much interpretation. I don't agree with that appraisal of Rand's knowledge in specific fields. Just because she made sweeping melodramatic statements does not mean that she had no knowledge at all. Those are two different things.

Thus, I find it more objective (and correct) to say, for example, "Rand made a rhetorical statement that was false (or grossly oversimplified) about modern science," rather than, "Rand knew nothing at all about modern science." I like to use my words with precision. I am surprised that those who are specialized in science do not like precision when it comes to Rand. They prefer to repeat her mistake and make sweeping melodramatic statements about her.

If they tried to use that system with experiments, they would fizzle in no time. Such evaluations certainly would not pass in a peer reviewed journal.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I just don't see the point of using John Galt's motor (a fictional device with multiple layers of mythic status) as an indictment of Ayn Rand's knowledge of physics. (While we're at it, could there be an alloy with the approximate composition and properties of Rearden Metal? In Rand's favorite color?)

Not when there is abundant evidence from other sources of views that she expressed outside of her fiction.

For instance, when Roger Bissell reminded us, on another thread, of her speculations about "little stuff," he was also reminding us that Rand really thought that she had a Parmenidean proof that there could be no empty space. When Leonard Peikoff rolled out that "proof" in his history of philosophy lectures, he wasn't just going off on some rationalistic tangent--he was following Rand.

Also relevant is Rand's much remarked upon pronouncement that 19th and 20th century natural science had to have gone downhill, because 19th and 20th century philosophy had been going downhill. Dr. Peikoff remains committed to this alleged death spiral, as does his associate David Harriman.

Mr. Harriman has been publishing in The Objective Standard. When I get a chance, I'll put up a summary or two of what he's been doing.

It strikes me that even Rand's most literal-minded followers have retained some ability to discriminate mythos from logos here. I've met Randians who were well trained in physics, yet were convinced (via the Parmenidean "proof") that there must be a luminiferous ether. (It would have been big news if they'd ever found it.) I've never heard of Randians who knew anything about physics trying to build a real-life Galt motor. Has anyone else here encountered such a phenomenon?

Robert Campbell

PS. It might also be interesting to contrast Rand's readiness to make occasional pronouncements about physics with her reluctance to commit herself about evolution. There's a statement about evolution in her last Ford Hall Forum address (1981) that makes her noncommittal stance all the more puzzling.

[BaalChatzaf]

Also relevant is Rand's much remarked upon pronouncement that 19th and 20th century natural science had to have gone downhill, because 19th and 20th century philosophy had been going downhill. Dr. Peikoff remains committed to this alleged death spiral, as does his associate David Harriman.

Dead wrong. Physics was going -uphill- until the middle of the 1970s. The Standard Model is a triumph in every sense. Intellectual and practical. The problems came with a basically untestable theory of everything to wit String Theory, M-Theory and Brane-Theory. When physicists started substituting Beauty for Truth and Testablity things came someone unglued. The late Karl Popper is having the last laugh.

However in other scientific pursuits and fields it has been triumph followed by triumph particularly in the fields of genetics, biology and molecular chemistry. The chemistry and physics of unusual and strong materials has never been in better shape. The medical applications of molecular chemistry is reported daily in the newspapers. It is the triumph of the quantum theory of the solid state. We have Reardan Metal. It is called carbon composite fibers. In the applied theory of communication technology we have yet to hit a peak. Now it is fiber optics. Tomorrow it will be quantum computers. And General Relativity has brought us the GPS. Man need never be lost, every again. GPS would not be possible without the advanced applications flowing from quantum electrodynamics and the quantum theory of solids.

I also note in passing that the field of motor design has never been in better shape. And this in a society that is half socialist and three quarters altruistic. My, my. Science is going very strong and all without the help of Aristotelean based philosophy, thank you.

As usual, Pope Leonard is wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 10, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I also note in passing that the field of motor design has never been in better shape. And this in a society that is half socialist and three quarters altruistic. My, my. Science is going very strong and all without the help of Aristotelean based philosophy, thank you.

Yeah, it did so great in 968 A.D. What we don't know is how much science is suffering right now in the U.S. because of government interference and subsidies. We don't know how much it has suffered because Hitler murdered millions of European Jews. I'm glad there's positive news, but we can't tabulate the negative.

--Brant

Edited September 10, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

I just don't see the point of using John Galt's motor (a fictional device with multiple layers of mythic status) as an indictment of Ayn Rand's knowledge of physics. (While we're at it, could there be an alloy with the approximate composition and properties of Rearden Metal? In Rand's favorite color?)

Not when there is abundant evidence from other sources of views that she expressed outside of her fiction.

Oh, sure, the motor is just one of the symptoms. See for example this post.

Now Rand is still careful enough to limit herself to rather vague and general statements. But Peikoff has no such limitations. I've described some of his howlers here and here.

Is it surprising that physicists when they're confronted with such crap in effect say: "crawl back under your rock, philosopher"? Leave the philosophy of science to those who at least are knowledgeable in the field (like for example Bernard d'Espagnat). If that is bashing, so be it.