New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I won't go so far as to claim there should not be an Objectivist movement. People can do what they wish.

I do know that I don't trust many people who call themselves Objectivists. I have seen these people do too many bad and purposefully deceptive things to trust them. Objectivism is a really good body of ideas to start with, but, from what I have observed, it is not any guarantee of quality, moral or otherwise. (That was a real disappointment when I came to that conclusion, but I cannot betray my own eyes and my own mind.)

So I seriously doubt I would trust an Objectivist who aspires to become a politician. I don't trust politicians on principle. My default position regarding such a person would be deeply entrenched distrust and he/she would have to go a long way to convince me otherwise.

(Oddly enough, on the fundy side, I trust Yaron Brook. I don't agree with several of his views, but I don't get the creepy feeling of manipulation from him that I get from many others that surround him. Should he run for office, I would not vote for him, though, because of my disagreements. At least it's not because of lack of trust and that's something.)

And that's just on the moral part. On the competence part, from what I have seen, the person would have to show some relevant achievement outside of the Objectivist realm for me to be convinced that he/she could function properly in a political office.

So should a formal Objectivist movement grow to be anything other than the vanity efforts at preaching we see around us at present, I doubt I will be participating in it.

To be fair, there are some good people who call themselves Objectivists taking good ideas to the mainstream public, but I have seen the ones I tend to agree with do that in the name of good ideas and reason, not in the name of an Objectivist movement.

I like discussing the ideas. And maybe using some of them for productive work. I'm especially looking forward to the film adaptations of Rand's work. But that's about as far as it goes with me.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I have nothing against Yaron Brook personally. All indications are that he is quite good at what he does. But promoting the Leonardine Papacy is part of his job description. He quits doing that and he's gone.

Contrast Brook with his former colleague Robert Tracinski, who is still close to the Orthodoxy in his professed beliefs on most subjects, but has been out there working with his local Tea Party. For anyone who is prone to assume that organizations, to be effective, must be subject to rigid top-down control, few learning experiences could be better.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I fully agree with what you just said.

I think Tracinski is a much better representative of where the "Objectivist movement" will go at its best than any organized Objectivist effort that tries to morph into an outright political movement like the Tea Party.

The activities of Ed Hudgins and the folks over at TAS also fits well with my conception. Ironically, I even think TAS would have far more impact if it were not positioned as the yang of the ARI yin.

Michael

[Starbuckle]

This and that:

1. Robert Campbell, can you elaborate your disagreements with Peikoff in your List of Four? I am acquainted only with some of your views about Peikoff's use of the word "arbitary."

For example, what is your dispute with "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy"?

With regard to the dispute over arbitrariness, this I don't get: "And because arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false, Peikoff's assertion about the Incompleteness Theorem would consequently lack a truth value.

"Whereas a metamathematician asserting that the Incompleteness Theorem pertains only to proofs with a finite number of steps would assert it non-arbitrarily.

"And the same proposition as asserted by the metamathematician would be true.

"Peikovian epistemology is necessarily inconsistent with the correspondence theory of truth."

If Peikoff doesn't know what he's referring to when he uses the term "Incompleteness Theorem," what is he referring to? Obviously, not the theorem; his conception of it isn't validly formed. It's thus not the same referent as the metamath guy's referent, let alone the originator of the theorem's referent, is it? How then can a contention (by, let's say, a meta-Peikoff) that Peikoff's characterization of the theorem carries no cognitive weight be "inconsistent with the correspondence theory of truth"?

Later in the thread you write: "If Peikoff says, 'Gödel's Incompleteness theorem pertains only to proofs with a finite number of steps,' his gross ignorance of the theorem and its context doesn't prevent his statement from denoting anything." But what does it denote? Surely not the theorem, if he doesn't know what the theorem is? Suppose for many years I mistakenly believe that a chandelier is a kind of candle. When I say the word "chandelier" the referent is a burning wax stick, not an electrically-powered light hanging from the ceiling. When I talk about chandeliers, am I talking about what other people talk about when they talk about chandeliers?

Suppose in a discussion I believe that the Dark Hole everybody is talking about is a patch of space from which no light can escape; but everyone else in the room is actually referring to a club named Dark Hole. They say, "Dark Hole closes at nine." I say, "What are you talking about? Dark Hole never 'closes'; or else, in a manner of speaking, it is always closed. It performs its function of sucking everything in continuously." Is what I have just said either a false statement about the club OR a true statement about the club? It is not even about the club at all. I wouldn't say it's "arbitrary," just mistaken and off-point, since I didn't pick up on what the conversation was about. But what's in my mind is not corresponding/referring to what the other people are talking about.

I haven't read Peikoff closely enough, recently enough to say what my exact take on his own statements about arbitrariness would be, except that I would say he is being arbitrary when he claims that anything Barbara Branden reports about Rand's life is "arbitrary." Peikoff has very often abused concepts and insights that were reasonable enough as originally formulated, or at least not patently silly even if debatable.

2. GHS said: "Many years ago, after some particularly obnoxious Harvard Law School students had attended an IHS seminar, I asked fellow teacher Randy Barnett, "Do you have to be an asshole to get into Harvard Law School, or does it turn you into one?"

"Randy, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, replied, 'Half and half.' "

Yes, many developments, including psychological ones, are reciprocal and dialectical.

[Robert Campbell]

Starbuckle,

Leonard Peikoff has certainly taken some good ideas and abused or misapplied them.

Peikoff's claim that every one of Barbara Branden's statements about Ayn Rand's personal life is arbitrary certainly stretches the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, if it does not constitute an actual abuse.

But the doctrine is already ill-thought-out, so unclear as to frustrate efforts to decide when it applies and when it doesn't, internally inconsistent—and inconsistent with other aspects of Objectivism as Peikoff presents them.

Here's an excerpt from my article on the subject, which you can read in its entirety at

http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/peikovianarbitrary.pdf

Peikoff claims, in a passage not quoted below, that putting forward an arbitrary assertion is just like what happens when a parrot squawks "2 + 2 = 4." Both are meaningless, though Peikoff does not use that word in his exposition.

The Peikovian Redemption Policy

From what Peikoff has said so far, the reader must be pardoned

for thinking that whatever qualifies as arbitrary will never escape that

status. If it has no relationship whatsoever with reality, how can it

acquire one? Unless Peikoff has quietly adopted a Buddhist conception

of hell, how can anyone or anything ever leave the lowest rung?

Nor is "inner chaos" a whole lot more reversible: Peikoff assures us

that indulging in the arbitrary will entrench it for life. Most remarkably,

then, it turns out that not all arbitrary claims must remain so. Some can

be redeemed.22

Here is the redemption policy:

Now let us note that some arbitrary claims (but by no means

all) can be transferred to a cognitive context and converted thereby

into true or false statements, which demonstrably correspond

to or contradict established fact. It is not mere words that

establish epistemological status, but their relation to evidence.

A savage's memorized recital of an arithmetic sum, for

example, would be like the parrot's, but the same utterance by

a man who understands the reasons behind it would constitute

a truth. (166)

Peikoff has reverted to equating arbitrary assertions with empty

symbols. So it becomes imperative to ask how many of the assertions

that Peikoff deems arbitrary are in fact put forward by people who

genuinely fail to understand any of the concepts in them, or any

possible rationale for them?

In this connection, Peikoff's invocation of the "savage" brings

little assurance. Mainly, it serves to remind the reader how little he

knows of the human past. As recently as the 1940s, the Oksapmin of

the New Guinea highlands were preliterate. Their traditional counting

system, which worked by pointing in sequence to various parts of the

upper body, stopped at 29. While the old Oksapmin counting system

evidently failed to support the multiplication of seven-digit numbers,

it still provided adequate grounds for asserting "Two plus two make

four," in full understanding of its truth (Saxe 1982).

Let us rather suppose, for the sake of argument, that Peikoff does

not fully understand Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Does it

follow that if Peikoff were to repeat an accurate one or two paragraph

summary of the theorem after reading it in a reference book, he would

be asserting this description arbitrarily? How much would Peikoff

need to know of the reasons for the theorem, before his assertions

concerning it were cleansed of the taint of arbitrariness? Would he

have to be able to reproduce Gödel's actual proof, with appropriate

commentary, or come up with a sound derivation of his own, before

we could conclude that he had provided enough evidence to liberate

his assertion from the realm of the arbitrary? What would it take

before any of his statements made in criticism of the theorem could be

deemed worthy of consideration as true or false?23

Peikoff is utterly unclear as to how often arbitrary assertions can be

redeemed by a person more knowledgeable or rational than their initial

proponent. Nor does he establish what makes some arbitrary assertions

potentially nonarbitrary, instead of dooming them forever.24 (pp. 111-113)

Robert Campbell

PS. How does Chapter 5 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand contradict Chapter 1?

[Robert Campbell]

Starbuckle,

Unlike his doctrine of contextual certainty, his version of the doctrine of the arbitrary, or his notion of the "premoral choice to live," Leonard Peikoff actually published about the analytic-synthetic dichotomy while Ayn Rand was alive.

And, wouldn't you know it, his essay on the subject has a lot more going for it than his latter-day treatments of certainty, the arbitrary, and the choice to live.

Peikoff's critique of analytic vs. synthetic draws on a number of good ideas, notably

— Natural necessity: some things have to do what they do because of what they are

— Inclusiveness of meaning: the meaning of a concept is not restricted to those characteristics mentioned in its definition

— Context-dependency of definition

His critique could have been more effective had he handled the history of the notion more clearly (e.g., in his history of philosophy lectures, Peikoff showed a much deeper underanding of Logical Positivism than a reader will infer from the essay).

It would also have been helpful for Peikoff to contrast his critique with Willard van Orman Quine's, which was already familiar to many academic philosophers (neither Peikoff's dissertation nor his essay ever mentions Quine).

And themes creep in that I called Leibnizian in a recent discussion and that George Smith called Hegelian. Peikoff isn't just saying that the meaning of a concept doesn't just include what's in its definition, or even just what is presently known about its referents. He seems to be saying that somehow all of the presently known characteristics, maybe even the presently unknown ones, can be mentally pulled out or unpacked from the concept.

That's the sort of thinking that Peikoff calls rationalistic—when someone else is engaging in it.

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

It would also have been helpful for Peikoff to contrast his critique with Willard van Orman Quine's, which was already familiar to many academic philosophers (neither Peikoff's dissertation nor his essay ever mentions Quine).

That was a failure of scholarship on Pope Leonard's part. Quine delivered the most cogent attack on the A-S distinction given in modern times. It seemed almost obligatory for L.P. to compare and contrast his approach to that of Quine's.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Wow! A few seconds ago there were 207 who had found McCaskey's review of The Logical Leap helpful or not on Amazon. Less than a week ago, the count was about 120. Tracinski's piece may be part of the cause, but it's hard to know. (The percent who have found the review helpful doesn't seem to have changed much. It is 89% of the 207.)

[Robert Campbell]

Merlin,

Still growing... I just looked at the McCaskey review and 216 people had rated it.

I figure Tracinski has something to do with response, because none of the other reviews have drawn nearly as much rater interest. Travis Norsen's, for instance, has been rated helpful or unhelpful 85 times. Gotthelf and Binswanger are up to 52 and 39, respectively.

Robert Campbell

[merjet]

John McCaskey put on his website some e-mails he wrote to Harriman about The Logical Leap. He says he wrote them "after reading the published version", so it was likely too late for Harriman to make changes.

[Robert Campbell]

Now 229 people have rated McCaskey's review on amazon.

Meanwhile, Norsen's has gone from 85 to 87.

A reasonable inference is that most recent visitors have read and rated just the McCaskey.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Merlin,

Thanks for posting the new link to McCaskey's site.

If those emails from McCaskey to Harriman are indicative, McCaskey went out of his way not to criticize any of HarriPei's major philosophical formulations.

Robert Campbell

[Peter]

When someone like Robert Tracinski “bids adieu” to The Ayn Rand Institute, just what are they saying goodbye to? To an intellectual home of course. I know wonderful people like Barbara Branden certainly have a right to be dismissive of Robert because she went through this back in, what was it, 1968?

Objectivists were on a collision course with the personality, but not the philosophy, of Ayn Rand, and as they are with the personality of Leonard Peikoff. A split is gut wrenching, but as someone mentioned, you can, after a split with authoritarianism, now say, “What would Howard Roark do?” and not be looking over your shoulder.

So, once you have severed a relationship with ARI, what is gone other than an intellectual home? Well the money of course!

Here are some tidbits from the ARI site.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

ARI awards $97,625 in prize money each year to the winners of its essay contests. The following contests are available

Anthem

For 8th, 9th & 10th graders

Deadline: March 20, 2011

The Fountainhead

For 11th & 12th graders

Deadline: April 26, 2011

We the Living

For 10th, 11th & 12th graders

Deadline: May 5, 2011

Former Participants

For 11th graders through adults

Deadline: May 14, 2011

Atlas Shrugged

For college students and graduating high school seniors

Deadline: September 17, 2011

Create a short web video, 3 minutes max, on how Ayn Rand’s epic story relates to current issues in society or in your own life. And have fun doing it.

Sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute, videos will be judged on their intellectual strength, creativity and persuasiveness.

Grand Prize

$5,000; winning video posted on the Atlas Shrugged website

2nd Prize

$1,000

Viewer’s Choice

Apple iPad pre-loaded with writings of Ayn Rand

Contest Entry Starts

October 1, 2010 @12:00 AM (PDT)

Contest Entry Ends

December 8, 2010 @11:59 PM (PST)

Contest Details

ARI is currently recruiting for an Instructor, Chief Operating Officer, Project Management Specialist (Ayn Rand Campus), and a Senior Instructor. [more info]

For Professors

ARI can arrange for volume discounts of Ayn Rand’s works for classroom use

The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship makes gifts to universities in support of scholarship on Ayn Rand and her ideas, as well as offers a variety of resources for professors who teach Rand in the classroom.

ARI supports student-run campus clubs at high schools and colleges throughout the world.

[william.scherk]

If those emails from McCaskey to Harriman are indicative, McCaskey went out of his way not to criticize any of HarriPei's major philosophical formulations.

I have been following the (non)debate on the Orthodox lists. Has anyone noted these new McCaskey emails appearing anywhere else?

As far as I can tell, the bar has gone down on discussion at Betsey's list and at Noodlefood. The premise for not allowing commentary moral judgement is that 'we don't have enough information.'

This premise strikes me as reasonable on its face, but desperately stupid in its execution. I figure that Leonard Peikoff will never comment for attribution on this imbroglio, so it seems that there will never be a time when the necessary information has been assembled for the orthodoxy to allow reasoned conclusions to be put forward.

Before Chip Joyce began his bannathon and one could read comments from a variety of Orthodox personages on his Facebook wall, Diana Hsieh had alluded to personal communications with named and unnamed High Poobahs. She may have since assembled a coherent result of her fitful investigative efforts, but as yet nothing has appeared from behind the iron curtain.

I wonder if Peikoff himself is actually queried by Orthodox worthies, or if everyone is skirting the margins of inquiry . . .

Every couple of days I send a politely-worded question to Peikoff asking him for evidence that McCaskey crossed the hot red line of Objectivist apostasy. I am surely not the only one to do so. But as far as I can tell, he prefers to answer questions about Ayn Rand's cats and the morality of loneliness. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

Edited October 6, 2010 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Folks:

Has anyone ever sued ARI successfully?

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

If those emails from McCaskey to Harriman are indicative, McCaskey went out of his way not to criticize any of HarriPei's major philosophical formulations.

I have been following the (non)debate on the Orthodox lists. Has anyone noted these new McCaskey emails appearing anywhere else?

As far as I can tell, the bar has gone down on discussion at Betsey's list and at Noodlefood. The premise for not allowing commentary moral judgement is that 'we don't have enough information.'

This premise strikes me as reasonable on its face, but desperately stupid in its execution. I figure that Leonard Peikoff will never comment for attribution on this imbroglio, so it seems that there will never be a time when the necessary information has been assembled for the orthodoxy to allow reasoned conclusions to be put forward.

Before Chip Joyce began his bannathon and one could read comments from a variety of Orthodox personages on his Facebook wall, Diana Hsieh had alluded to personal communications with named and unnamed High Poobahs. She may have since assembled a coherent result of her fitful investigative efforts, but as yet nothing has appeared from behind the iron curtain.

I wonder if Peikoff himself is actually queried by Orthodox worthies, or if everyone is skirting the margins of inquiry . . .

Every couple of days I send a politely-worded question to Peikoff asking him for evidence that McCaskey crossed the hot red line of Objectivist apostasy. I am surely not the only one to do so. But as far as I can tell, he prefers to answer questions about Ayn Rand's cats and the morality of loneliness. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

WSS,

If only Dr. Peikoff had confined himself to Ayn Rand's cats, none of this kerfuffle would be necessary. It is when he tries to take on weightier subjects that difficulties arise. As Ayn Rand said in The Fountainhead: A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends. In the end, Dr. Peikoff had just enough power and just enough hubris to hang himself.

Jim

Edited October 6, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[william.scherk]

As far as I can tell, the bar has gone down on discussion at Betsey's list and at Noodlefood.

Not quite true . . . the newly appeared McCaskey emails have been referenced at Noodlefood, and the OLer known only as Starknuckle has posted the lengthy script of Peikoff there too. Prepare for the red button . . .

[9thdoctor]

the newly appeared McCaskey emails have been referenced at Noodlefood, and the OLer known only as Starknuckle has posted the lengthy script of Peikoff there too. Prepare for the red button . . .

The Comrade Sonia of 2006 would surely excommunicate the Comrade Sonia of 2010 for allowing this. She called on people to boycott Betsy's site for less, in a "it's me or her" kind of way.

[Selene]

As far as I can tell, the bar has gone down on discussion at Betsey's list and at Noodlefood.

Not quite true . . . the newly appeared McCaskey emails have been referenced at Noodlefood, and the OLer known only as Starknuckle has posted the lengthy script of Peikoff there too. Prepare for the red button . . .

Starbuckle I believe.

[9thdoctor]

Has anyone ever sued ARI successfully?

Sue for what? What kind of case?

[Robert Campbell]

I'm surprised that Starb/knuckle's fake interview with Dr. Peikoff is still on the NoodleFood Open Comment thread.

Comrade Sonia must be experiencing slowed reaction times today.

Robert Campbell

[Mike11]

This can only be a good thing can't it?

I read somewhere that people have left Orthodox Objectivism because it conflicted with their professional fields - psychology, philosophy, anthropology etc.

If the ARI takes an anti-science position officially it can only serve to push people towards groups like the TAS right?

[Selene]

Has anyone ever sued ARI successfully?

Sue for what? What kind of case?

ND:

Sorry, cannot rush a thought as a post.

Scratch successful. Has anyone ever sued for access to the archives? That was my question. I realize that there would be virtually no survivability of the suit because of standing, but that never stops people at the lower court levels.

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'm surprised that Starb/knuckle's fake interview with Dr. Peikoff is still on the NoodleFood Open Comment thread.

Comrade Sonia must be experiencing slowed reaction times today.

Robert Campbell

I wonder if Starbuckle's satire qualifies under Noodlefood's "otherwise uncivilized" criteria for deletion, inquiring minds want to know.

Jim

[Robert Campbell]

Starbuckle's satire is still sitting on the most recent Open Comment thread at NoodleFood. Interesting...

McCaskey's amazon review has been rated 231 times.

And I've never heard of anyone trying to sue ARI, over access to the Archives or anything else.

ARI, on the other hand, has threatened to sue other parties on a number of occasions. I don't know how often they've gone through with it.

Robert Campbell