New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[sjw]

Subject: Continuing/Expanding the Attack on Personal Motives

> Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

> Diana Hsieh is keeping quiet ...No doubt she is busily making political calculations.

Robert, you keep making posts in which you accuse people of kowtowing or saying things they don't believe, which would be dishonest. Can you show us the CAT scans of HB's and AG's and DH's brains which constitute proof with regard to all three of them?

So since we don't have tools to directly perceive motives, then we should never infer them? Is that your actual position?

Shayne

[Ellen Stuttle]

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

On August 23, Harry Binswanger posted on HBL a lengthy, detailed discussion of Peikoff's argument and stated that in his judgment Peikoff had solved the problem of induction. He left open room for disagreeing with his assessment but said that even someone who disagrees can see that Peikoff provides the essentials for "break[ing] the back" of the problem.

I wouldn't describe his piece as "kiss-ass," and it sure isn't "perfunctory."

I can't copy his post of course, since permission has to be acquired to post things from HBL elsewhere. (No, I'm not subscribed to HBL. I acquired the piece from one of the people I know who are subscribed.)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

On August 23, Harry Binswanger posted on HBL a lengthy, detailed discussion of Peikoff's argument and stated that in his judgment Peikoff had solved the problem of induction. He left open room for disagreeing with his assessment but said that even someone who disagrees can see that Peikoff provides the essentials for "break[ing] the back" of the problem.

I wouldn't describe his piece as "kiss-ass," and it sure isn't "perfunctory."

I can't copy his post of course, since permission has to be acquired to post things from HBL elsewhere. (No, I'm not subscribed to HBL. I acquired the piece from one of the people I know who are subscribed.)

Ellen

"His judgment"? As such it's just twaddle. HB's an intellectual black hole.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

"[HB's] judgment"? As such it's just twaddle. [....]

No, it isn't. I suppose you missed that he gave a lengthy, detailed discussion.

Ellen

[sjw]

"[HB's] judgment"? As such it's just twaddle. [....]

No, it isn't. I suppose you missed that he gave a lengthy, detailed discussion.

Ellen

"Twaddle" is not a synonym for a short discussion lacking in detail.

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

On August 23, Harry Binswanger posted on HBL a lengthy, detailed discussion of Peikoff's argument and stated that in his judgment Peikoff had solved the problem of induction. He left open room for disagreeing with his assessment but said that even someone who disagrees can see that Peikoff provides the essentials for "break[ing] the back" of the problem.

I wouldn't describe his piece as "kiss-ass," and it sure isn't "perfunctory."

Ms. Stuttle needs to reread.

I was referring to Harry Binswanger's two-paragraph review on amazon, which I think can fairly be described as "kiss-ass" and "perfunctory." It gives no credible reasons for the position taken—and, by this time, Travis Norsen had already posted a detailed critique.

No one gives a damn whether Ms. Stuttle is tight with someone who participates on HBL.

No one is going to take her at her word on one more item that she won't show us (now, she has a legitimate reason not to post stuff from HBL, but then she has no excuse for assuring us about the value of stuff from HBL when we can't see it).

What matters here is that Harry Binswanger is either too contemptuous of everyone outside Toon Town, or too lacking in confidence in his own position, to make his actual arguments known outside of a closed list with a loyalty oath required for participation.

As long as he operates under this policy, no one need take him seriously.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Twaddle" is not a synonym for a short discussion lacking in detail.

I'm interpreting Brant's "twaddle" as meaning lacking in cognitive substance. Harry's presentation isn't lacking in that. He gave a detailed presentation providing basis for his judgment. My point is countering Robert's "kiss-ass" and "perfunctory" description -- i.e., his assumption that Harry's support isn't sincere.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

"[HB's] judgment"? As such it's just twaddle. [....]

No, it isn't. I suppose you missed that he gave a lengthy, detailed discussion.

Brant didn't miss anything.

He has no evidence that Harry Binswanger's discussion was worth a hoot. Neither do the rest of us, because we haven't seen it on HBL.

Apparently Brant is under an obligation to accept Ms. Stuttle's word on what she saw and we haven't.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

As you probably know, a CAT scan taken while a person is making a decision won't reveal his or her motives.

The position you appear to be adopting is that inferences about another person's unstated motives are always improper.

Such advice cannot be followed (except perhaps by people who are suffering from severe autism) and human beings could not function in society if they were foolish enough to try to follow it.

I arrived at my judgment about Harry Binswanger's two-paragraph review by reading it, thinking for a moment about Harry Binswanger's political position within ARI, and thinking for another moment about his track record.

It wasn't rocket science.

Same goes for my judgment about Gotthelf's review, which was longer and offered a semblance of enthusiasm for the Harriman volume. All you need to know about Gotthelf in this context is that in 2000, he was promising an imminent review essay which would sort out the good scholarship from the bad when it came to matters Randian. In 2010, he is still deflecting inquiries and asking people to wait for his imminent review essay. The problem, of course, with a serious review essay is that it might criticize some work by ARIans or praise some work by non-ARIans...

Again, a long way from rocket science.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

"Twaddle" is not a synonym for a short discussion lacking in detail.

I'm interpreting Brant's "twaddle" as meaning lacking in cognitive substance. Harry's presentation isn't lacking in that. He gave a detailed presentation providing basis for his judgment. My point is countering Robert's "kiss-ass" and "perfunctory" description -- i.e., his assumption that Harry's support isn't sincere.

Ellen

Having been a member of HBL for a year or so, I think Brant's estimate of what he hasn't seen is probably accurate.

Speaking of the "loyalty oath," I left HBL because something came up on the list that indicated I had not understood it. Evidently I had inadvertently violated the oath in my purchase of one of David Kelly's books. I verified that I had with HB. He didn't boot me from the list, but I left because I couldn't consent to that kind of restriction. HB was OK with me reading the book in the public library or maybe buying a used copy, but not in buying a new one (this policy fits will with his pragmatist remarks on other topics such as patents).

HBL is mostly littered with narrow-minded chattering about nothing of consequence, but discussed with a very erudite and polished flair, and if you bring up an issue of consequence, it is filtered out by HB. My worst memory of the latter is when I brought up some facts about his hero Thomas Edison and tried to argue that Nicola Tesla was more worthy of admiration. Of course, like HB, Thomas Edison was a pragmatist so I wasn't going to get my thoughts on this published to his list.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

"[HB's] judgment"? As such it's just twaddle. [....]

No, it isn't. I suppose you missed that he gave a lengthy, detailed discussion.

Ellen

I sure did since all we got here is "his judgment" from you = twaddle. What you said is twaddle. Everything he says on his private list that remains private is de facto twaddle except maybe to those who read it. I knew that before you published your next-to nothing. You know it's twaddle too, so I don't know why you put it up. By the terms of HB's list you received stolen property but in terms of intellectual property you are now free to paraphrase the hell out of it and use some actual quotes--so why don't you? If you don't it is more than twaddle, it is hypocritical twaddle--that is it's okay for you to receive stolen property, but you're going to respect it by sitting on it. Since you never seem to actually deal with ideas, only people, that's understandable. I can't believe you are engaging in such cheap "I'm-in-the-know" prestige-hunting--I mean I wouldn't have before you just did.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Can someone provide a link or a summary regarding the orthodox reaction to Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Word must have been going out to senior ARIans to chime in in support of Harriman, because during August Harry Binswanger and Alan Gotthelf both put perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.

On August 23, Harry Binswanger posted on HBL a lengthy, detailed discussion of Peikoff's argument and stated that in his judgment Peikoff had solved the problem of induction. He left open room for disagreeing with his assessment but said that even someone who disagrees can see that Peikoff provides the essentials for "break[ing] the back" of the problem.

I wouldn't describe his piece as "kiss-ass," and it sure isn't "perfunctory."

Ms. Stuttle needs to reread.

I was referring to Harry Binswanger's two-paragraph review on amazon, which I think can fairly be described as "kiss-ass" and "perfunctory." It gives no credible reasons for the position taken—and, by this time, Travis Norsen had already posted a detailed critique.

I know what you were referring to, Robert. You used HB's comment on Amazon as part of your supposed evidence of the word "going out to senior ARIans." Word going out wouldn't have produced the item Harry posted on his list.

[...] she has no excuse for assuring us about the value of stuff from HBL when we can't see it).

Misparaphrse #..... I didn't assure you of the value of it. I said nothing about whether I find his analysis valuable. (Actually, I do find it good, but I didn't say that in the post you misrepresent.)

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

> most ARIans seem uninterested in philosophy of science

Because...? Based on only those few dudes who post a lot on websites? Based on the short period of time since H's book has been published?

Phil,

The Harriman book hit the stands on July 8, and was being promoted pretty heavily in Objectivist circles well before that.

You can get it for less than $12 on amazon.

And it doesn't take an eon to read.

Given all the (local) ballyhoo surrounding the book, yes, I was surprised that most of the people opining about McCaskey's departure on online fora hadn't read the book yet.

I hope they don't all have the same attitude about the controversy surrounding Harriman's book that you have about the controversy surrounding Valliant's book—namely, that it's fine to opine without reading, and to keep on opining for five years without reading.

(To be fair to the OOers and FARFists, most who had not read the Harriman book seemed to realize that their opinions were more tentative and would carry less weight because they hadn't.)

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

When will you pay attention, Brant?

Robert is claiming that word has gone out. As usual, he's fancying plots within schemes within..... That is my point.

And, no, it isn't "stolen property." There's permission for members to forward to a few people.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

I know what you were referring to, Robert. You used HB's comment on Amazon as part of your supposed evidence of the word "going out to senior ARIans." Word going out wouldn't have produced the item Harry posted on his list.

Ms. Stuttle can't quit with the BS.

The point of any word going out to senior ARIans, or so I thought, was that they'd better make a public show of support.

Hence my references to Binswanger and Gotthelf posting reviews on amazon.

Amazon is a public forum.

HBL is not.

[...] she has no excuse for assuring us about the value of stuff from HBL when we can't see it).

Misparaphrse #..... I didn't assure you of the value of it. I said nothing about whether I find his analysis valuable. (Actually, I do find it good, but I didn't say that in the post you misrepresent.)

Like hell Ms. Stuttle didn't try to assure us of the positive value of Harry Binswanger's secret statement.

Its value is enhanced, for Ms. Stuttle, by the fact that she knows what's in it and we don't.

That particular informational asymmetry does not, of course, enhance its value for the rest of us.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

When will you pay attention, Brant?

Robert is claiming that word has gone out. As usual, he's fancying plots within schemes within..... That is my point.

And, no, it isn't "stolen property." There's permission for members to forward to a few people.

Ellen

Please, then, please, paraphrase it, quote it, share it with us--hoi polloi.

--Brant

if they're free to forward it aren't the recipients free to do the same?

PS: You and I are talking about "twaddle."

Edited September 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Robert is claiming that word has gone out. As usual, he's fancying plots within schemes within..... That is my point.

Ah, I see.

And Ms. Stuttle thinks Leonard Peikoff wouldn't be pressing his underlings, and David Harriman wouldn't be pressing his colleagues, to show support in this kind of situation? Given the internal hierarchies at the Estate and ARI, the personal importance of the project to both Peikoff and Harriman, and the vested interest Peikoff has in getting his latter-day productions treated as canonical?

Perhaps Ms. Stuttle favors the alternative hypothesis that Leonard Peikoff sat and stewed about McCaskey's affronts to his pontifical status, in private, sharing them with no one else for up to a solid month, before firing off his "him or me" email to Arline Mann?

I can't say that's impossible.

But given organizational dynamics that one occasionally encounters in other venues, not merely amidst the strange attractors in Toon Town, my money's on the first hypothesis, not the second.

Perhaps Ms. Stuttle will now invite Lindsay Perigo and whatever is left of his entourage to regale us all with tales of Campbell the Conspiracy Theorist...

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Neil Parille's piece on the McCaskey schism, which I have just finished reading, is excellent:

http://objectiblog.b...key-schism.html

Not only does he connect the dots in a sober fashion (while acknowledging that trying to understand what goes on within ARI is akin to Kremlinology), but he points out the awkward position that Allan Gotthelf has been in since On Ayn Rand got jumped on.

When I read On Ayn Rand a couple of years ago, I was amazed that any member of the Orthodoxy could object to his formulations. Could it be that dismissing Chris Sciabarra's ideas, while pointedly not mentioning Sciabarra by name, wasn't enough? Could it be that dismissing Barbara Branden's uncited biography as a product of "continued embitterment" was excessive?

The book is a crisp, well presented overview ... of Orthodox Objectivism. It enshrines "oral tradition" (Rand spoke, Peikoff listened) as a legitimate source. It isn't a complete presentation (in a series of skinny books limited to 100 pages) but it doesn't point to gray areas, to work undone, or to issues on which Orthodox Objectivism is vulnerable to criticism.

Let's see Ms. Stuttle and her imported chorus of Perigonians try to convince anyone that Neil Parille is a conspiracy theorist.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Can someone provide a link or a summary regarding the orthodox reaction to Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand?

[Ellen Stuttle]

The point of any word going out to senior ARIans, or so I thought, was that they'd better make a public show of support.

Hence my references to Binswanger and Gotthelf posting reviews on amazon.

Amazon is a public forum.

HBL is not.

Your description was "perfunctory, kiss-ass," indicating insincerity, which indication you reinforced in replies to Phil.

[...] she has no excuse for assuring us about the value of stuff from HBL when we can't see it).

Misparaphrse #..... I didn't assure you of the value of it. I said nothing about whether I find his analysis valuable. (Actually, I do find it good, but I didn't say that in the post you misrepresent.)

Like hell Ms. Stuttle didn't try to assure us of the positive value of Harry Binswanger's secret statement.

Like hell she did.

Perhaps Ms. Stuttle will now invite Lindsay Perigo and whatever is left of his entourage to regale us all with tales of Campbell the Conspiracy Theorist...

I won't be issuing the invite, no. But I think your Conspiracy Theorist talents are wasted in so small a world as O'ist-land. You could have gotten big bucks with popular-appeal conspiracy theorizing.

Ellen

[Dennis Hardin]

Neil Parille's piece on the McCaskey schism, which I have just finished reading, is excellent:

http://objectiblog.b...key-schism.html

Not only does he connect the dots in a sober fashion (while acknowledging that trying to understand what goes on within ARI is akin to Kremlinology), but he points out the awkward position that Allan Gotthelf has been in since On Ayn Rand got jumped on.

When I read On Ayn Rand a couple of years ago, I was amazed that any member of the Orthodoxy could object to his formulations. Could it be that dismissing Chris Sciabarra's ideas, while pointedly not mentioning Sciabarra by name, wasn't enough? Could it be that dismissing Barbara Branden's uncited biography as a product of "continued embitterment" was excessive?

The book is a crisp, well presented overview ... of Orthodox Objectivism. It enshrines "oral tradition" (Rand spoke, Peikoff listened) as a legitimate source. It isn't a complete presentation (in a series of skinny books limited to 100 pages) but it doesn't point to gray areas, to work undone, or to issues on which Orthodox Objectivism is vulnerable to criticism.

Let's see Ms. Stuttle and her imported chorus of Perigonians try to convince anyone that Neil Parille is a conspiracy theorist.

Robert Campbell

Just for the record, I also applauded Neil's article here.

[Robert Campbell]

Sorry, Dennis, I should have acknowledged that you'd already linked Neil's article.

I still really want to see Ms. Stuttle and the Perigonian chorus trying to make a conspiracy theorist out of Neil.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Allan Gotthelf's review of Harriman is dated August 11.

http://www.amazon.co...&tag=&linkCode=

Here's the whole thing.

It's two paragraphs long, in which space such matters as contextual certainty, the doctrine of the arbitrary, and Peikoff's theory about how the mathematical nature of concept-formation requires physics to be mathematical can't be mentioned.

Perfunctory.

I would like to bring this book, by historian of science David Harriman, to the attention of readers with a serious interest in the philosophy of induction. It outlines a fundamentally new approach to the nature of inductive reasoning that I think is of the greatest importance, and indicates how significant episodes in the history of physics illustrate, and provide further evidence for, that approach. The inductive theory was developed by Leonard Peikoff, building on Ayn Rand's revolutionary theory of concepts. Rand's theory (presented in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) explains the way concepts are formed on the basis of perceptual awareness, later concepts being built up hierarchically from first-level concepts of entities and their attributes, actions, relationships and so forth. Peikoff has established that there is a class of first-level generalizations expressing or reflecting perceived causal relationships, and a method of building more abstract generalizations hierarchically from them that generates scientific knowledge, and has shown how the validity of these later generalizations rests on the formation, in the course of scientific discovery, of proper concepts (in accordance with Rand's theory). Harriman has written the book in consultation with Peikoff.

Though I can't speak personally for the full accuracy of the historical accounts, they are essentialized with great skill, and lucidly presented. Harriman helpfully indicates how the episodes he discusses illustrate and support aspects of Peikoff's theory. I would like to have seen the connections between the episodes and the theory developed more fully, and the theory itself amplified in places; and the initial account of Rand's theory of concepts is too compressed. However, I give the book a 5 for the significance of Peikoff's theory (as illuminated by the historical accounts): it is a major advance, and I think that all further thinking about the nature of induction must build on his results.

Passages I've put in bold:

First: Gotthelf, as a practicing academic who lives surrounded by historians and philosophers of science, leaves himself wiggle room on the history.

Second: He declares that "all further thinking about the nature of induction must build on [Harriman's] results."

Kiss-ass.

Is Dr. Gotthelf going to be telling all his colleagues at Pitt: Read Harriman's book, because all future work about generalizing in science must build on it?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Harry Binswanger's review of the Harriman book is dated August 23.

http://www.amazon.co...&tag=&linkCode=

I agree entirely with prof. Allan Gotthelf's 5-star review of this innovative book. The work applies Ayn Rand's revolutionary theory of concept-formation, and her Objectivist epistemology's stress on knowledge as hierarchical and contextual. The theory presented and concretized historically in this clearly-written book is a "must read" for anyone interested in how scientific knowledge is actually acquired.

As a professional philosopher myself, I would say this book actually solves the age-old problem of induction. Even those with a more conservative estimate should concede that it opens the door to any fuller solution that may follow.

So perfunctory, it makes Gotthelf's encomium, onto which it tags, look like deep, searching analysis.

And everything I've put in bold...

Kiss-ass.

On HBL, Binswanger has possibly said something he actually thinks.

You could build a wind-up toy that would emit this amazon review.

Robert Campbell