New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[PDS]

I assure you, sir, I am no Brit. I thought kerfuffle was a recently invented term. By-the-by, wouldn't it be great if the internet had a search engine of some type that would allow me to simply punch in the word "kerfuffle" and then have a bunch of references pop up on the screen? I would then have some idea of what I'm talking about. Damn, my head is full of ideas some days...

I first came across the term "kerfuffle" by an Canadian internet correspondent of Scottish/Irish origin who used it.

It seems to be quite old actually:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kerfuffle

kerfuffle, carfuffle, kurfuffle [kəˈfʌfəl]

n

Informal chiefly Brit commotion; disorder; agitation

vb

(tr) Scot to put into disorder or disarray; ruffle or disarrange

[from Scottish curfuffle, carfuffle, from Scottish Gaelic car twist, turn + fuffle to disarrange]

Lame attempts at humor aside, "kerfuffle" became a part of the zeitgeist/political lexicon by its repeated and clever usage by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal circa 2006-7. Taranto may have even gotten President Bush to use the term. Although the term is not yet passe, it is getting there.

[George H. Smith]

Harriman has been Peikoff's protégé for so long that his master's arrogance, misleading rhetoric, and shoddy argumentation have become second nature to him.

So he equates John McCaskey with any old "academic philosopher of science," and, by the transitivity of equality, with the late Paul Feyerabend.

I recently reread Feyerabend's book Against Method, much of which is concerned with the controversy over Galileo. It is a frustrating book in some ways, but it also contains some provocative insights. I found this passage (p. 130) especially interesting:

The Roman Church...claimed to possess the exclusive rights of exploring, interpreting and applying Holy Scripture. Lay people, according to the teaching of the Church, had neither the knowledge nor the authority to tamper with Scripture and they were forbidden to do so. This comment, whose rigidity was a result of the new Tridentine Spirit, should not surprise anyone familiar with the habits of powerful institutions. The attitude of the American Medical Association towards lay practitioners is as rigid as the attitude of the Church was towards lay interpreters -- and it has the blessing of the law. Experts, or ignoramuses having acquired the formal insignia of expertise, always tried and often succeeded in securing for themselves exclusive rights in special domains. Any criticism of the Roman Church applies also to its modern scientific and science-connected successors.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

I recently reread Feyerabend's book Against Method, much of which is concerned with the controversy over Galileo. It is a frustrating book in some ways, but it also contains some provocative insights. I found this passage (p. 130) especially interesting:

The Roman Church...claimed to possess the exclusive rights of exploring, interpreting and applying Holy Scripture. Lay people, according to the teaching of the Church, had neither the knowledge nor the authority to tamper with Scripture and they were forbidden to do so.

The Church analogy also works well in the 'private matter' fumblings of ARI zealots. Betsy Speicher, among others, have compared ARI board matters to business practice, corporate internals -- see Starbuckle's paraphrase above. I thought a Church metaphor better as read by tweaking Betsy's contentions . . .

'She says that those accepting ARI's support should conform to ARI's mission in the same way people working for a large corporation church should support the company's church goals as set out by upper management ecclesiastical authorities. [sigh.] She says that this is necessary and proper for the corporation church -- or for ARI -- to do its job. That a young person just starting out may join a corporation church to learn the business philosophy or he may become an OAC Divinity School student to learn Objectivism. That both thereby acquire support, education, and guidance and that is very important in the beginning. That after a while, the young employee novitiate may seek new opportunities or want to work in a new direction incompatible with the corporation's church goals, so he will leave the company church to work study elsewhere or to start his own business church. In likewise manner, she concludes, an OAC divinity student may eventually have an independent career in academia, do research and writing in areas of his personal interest, and/or expand or use Ayn Rand's ideas in ways that are outside the scope of ARI's concerns. And that this "is fine too."'

It's a nice shit or get off the pot moment for everyone.

Edited October 12, 2010 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

She poses sharp questions and uses effective rhetoric, I'd say. She ups the ante on Uncle Grandpa, that's for sure. He seems autistic by not answering her emails. Diana is DISAPPOINTED and promises "judgements" to come.

WSS,

There is that element of disappointment that Leonard Peikoff hasn't answered her emails.

But she's hedging her bets.

The staging of her posts means she can still pretend to have been swayed by wonderfully cogent arguments she isn't allowed to repeat, should it prove politic to reaffirm her fealty to Leonard Peikoff.

And she brought her husband in as co-author. Paul's involvement almost certainly implies a cooling of the rhetoric.

MIghty busy, those OAC people. So constantly and frantically on the move, they can't teleconference with their novices, er, students, till November 8th.

The OAC people are obviously stalling for time.

Ms. Hsieh has laid out some material that is hardly flattering to either Harriman or Peikoff. But she is holding off on delivering the judgments.

We'll just have to stay tuned...

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

There are not "many different concepts" of political individualism. For nearly two centuries "individualism" (the word was coined, or at least popularized, by Saint-Simonians in the early 19th century) has been associated with the classical liberal tradition, according to which people should be free to pursue their own values so long as they respect the equal freedom of others.

So you reduce Rand's idea of individualism to political individualism?

As for people being free to pursue their own values as long as they respect the equal freeedom of others, this would be conceding that the values pursued by person X are no more objective than the values pursued by person Y.

And both X and Y have agreed on non-interference and NIOF as their basic value.

If one operates like that, one does not need a whole catalog of cardinal moral virtues and values, right?

Does a "moral absolute" even exist, given the fact that moral systems are subject to permanent change?

Of course I can call moral absolute anything I like. For example, one can I can call moral absolute what is actually merely a rigid moral rule..

In an islamic fundamentalist society, it is regarded as a "moral absolute" that a female has to remain a virgin until her marriage.

You can also call a pimple on your ass a "moral absolute," if you like.

You are trying to slip away again. But let's stay focused. The "moral absolute" is obviously a hot iron, since all kinds of moralists propagate it.

There is nothing to stop you, except a due regard for coherence and rational standards -- and you have never let those stand in your way before.

Wasn't it you who tried to introduce decoherence with the 'pimple' example? ;)

Do you really believe in any "moral absolute"?

Can you give an example of a rational moral standard?

Edited October 12, 2010 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I received a complaint from Ms. Speicher about Starbuckle's post 420 (the one concerning her thoughts on the latest Peikoff antics). Her complaint was actually addressed to Kat. It was quite obnoxious, too.

I hate it when people get obnoxious with Kat.

I really, really hate it...

Kat is the sweetest woman in the world and she never does anything rotten to anyone. She deserves respect and good manners.

Anyway, with respect to OL, I'm the one who ends up dealing with things like this. Since I did not read the post--I only skimmed it--and I am just now getting back into the forum saddle, I am thinking about what to do.

Before doing anything, though, I need to get properly familiar with all this.

At an earlier time in participating in Objectivist subculture nonsense, I would have immediately gone into attack and/or defense mode. Or I would have complied with the demand to remove the post without a second thought if I felt the demand was valid. (In other words, if I determined it on moral autopilot--without thinking it through. Ms. Speicher's demand also included an outright order to remove all posts by others that reference Starbuckle's post. I wonder what else this woman expects people she does not know to grant her because she is rude and tells them to...)

Now, the only thing I seek is wisdom. There is a wise rational way to act and I intend to do precisely that.

So stay tuned. This is in my task queue.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

She has nothing to complain about. Her missive was not reproduced, just paraphrased and analyzed.

--Brant

tell the pragmatist to stuff it (a suggestion, not a command)

Edited October 12, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does

In secret. And we need two months after the event to get our story straight. Travel schedules my foot.

To review: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Two plus two equals what the party says. You don’t want us to send you to Room 101...

Ms. Speicher's demand also included an outright order to remove all posts by others that reference Starbuckle's post. I wonder what else this woman expects people she does not know to grant her because she is rude and tells them to...)

If this were Comrade Sonia asking, v’affanculo would be the almost obligatory answer, but here it’s a bit less clear. It’s a paraphrase, after all (I say this having not read Betsy’s “statement”). I’d really like to read this obnoxious email. Why all the frickin’ secrecy? If you have a case, why can’t you make it openly?

[sjw]

She has nothing to complain about. Her missive was not reproduced, just analyzed.

--Brant

tell the pragmatist to stuff it (a suggestion, not a command:) )

She can complain on at least the count that the analysis misrepresents her actual view.

Legally though, I'm not sure what she can do, unless gossip is illegal now.

Morally, one might consider judging Starbuckle for violating a kind of confidence. Betsy might justifiably be morally outraged at Starbuckle.

I don't see why this legally requires MSK to do anything, however, I think a case could be made that blatantly immoral posts should not be allowed. The problem is, if that's going to be the new moderation standard, then some of the stuff Philip and I have complained about would need to be banned too. But the worst problem is that I've never seen an actually just implementation of moderation policies such as this. In theory it makes sense, in practice we just aren't there (yet?). No one's been able to pull this off, especially not Betsy, who arbitrarily bans and censors all the time. This forum errs in the other direction, and the members here find that preferable to being gagged all the time for not towing the Party Line.

Shayne

Edited October 13, 2010 by sjw

[Starbuckle]

GHS said "[kerfuffle = British invasion]"? The only reason I know the word kerfuffle is that it has been used so frequently by James Taranto of WSJ Best of the Web fame.

I had thought that according to Peikoff, facts of any kind immediately implied values and the propriety of evaluation. If you refuse to evaluate when you should be evaluating, you're not a good valuer, or something.

The strained agnosticism of the Noodlefood report seems to contradict this proclamation. The facts are in. Obviously they have enough to know that Peikoff is being wacko. And don't they also know that being wacko is bad? To be wacko is sort of like being irrational.

Piekoff won't say anything further, so the pro-wacko faction are saying, "Well, we don't have all the relevant information, and we're probably never gonna GIT all the relevant information. And maybe if we did have all the information, the self-evident inference that Peikoff is being a wacko here would magically go away! Ergo, we can't make any judgment at all yet." Or: "Our knowledge of Peikoff tips the balance in his favor, since a man of his character would NEVER write that kind of memo to McCAskey WITHOUT some super-private, wrong-to-reveal personal context that magically justifies it!" The Noodlers don't go so far as the latter rationalization, but they do seem bound and determined to refrain from admitting that there is no reasonable conclusion but that Peikoff is being a wacko, perhaps even an asshole.

The Noodlers' abbreviated historical "context," under the pretense of being comprehensive, is dishonest by omission. What they "add" to our knowledge of the bad treatment of McCaskey is trivial.

The latest kerfuffle is nothing new or shocking from Peikoff or his cohorts in orthodoxy. In 1968, the orthodox were screaming that there MUST be some super-secret, wrong-to-reveal personal context that justified Ayn Rand's lengthy attack on the Brandens, notwithstanding the Brandens' point-by-point response to what she did choose to "reveal" in her denunciatory and self-destructive "explanation" in The Objectivist. In 1986, the super-secret context was revealed in Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand, and the orthodox remnant screamed that NO WAY could Rand have had a longtime love affair with the arch-evil Branden...not the woman THEY knew. This all instantly changed when Peikoff felt obliged to divulge that, yes, there did seem to be some kind of affair...and the new "obvious" conclusion became that Rand was only wronged in the whole business, never the one wronging others. Then of course there was the Kelley ouster, a few years after the bio, with the orthodox working 24-hour shifts at the strawman factory to prove that everything Kelley said in his writings about Objectivism and the movement meant the opposite of what it said; then the Reisman ouster a few years after that; then the book-length smear of the Brandens by that guy, whatsisface, etc., on and on.

Peikoff was the wacko-in-chief back in 1968. It ain't nothing new. He has certainly lapsed into very persuasive simulations of sanity for quite long stretches. He is an intelligent man, often a fine writer and thinker, whatever his shortcomings. Too bad he's wacko, as well.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Starbuckle]

MSK wrote: "So stay tuned. This is in my task queue."

You're announcing that you MIGHT censor me and that I should "stay tuned"?

[Starbuckle]

Shayne wrote: "Morally, one might considering judging Starbuckle for violating a kind of confidence. Betsy might justifiably be morally outraged at Starbuckle."

I violated no confidence. I never agreed not to discuss her super-secret memo.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

If I were in your position, I'd be in no hurry to conclude that I owed Betsy Speicher anything.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're announcing that you MIGHT censor me and that I should "stay tuned"?

Starbuckle,

I don't censor and I don't submit to intimidation--neither from Ms. Speicher nor from you.

I will do what I think is right and what is good for this forum.

I am not familiar enough with everything to make that call, so I am still reading.

If you did something wrong, I will probably detect it. If you didn't, I will probably detect that, too. If I have questions that you can answer, I will ask. Ditto for Ms. Speicher (From the attitude she conveyed so far, I would not expect her to answer. But if I need information from her, I will ask her the appropriate questions. That's the least a rational person of good will can do.)

As to your problems with Ms. Speicher, that is between you and Ms. Speicher. I have no beef with her other than her rudeness to Kat. Well... I also don't like the bashing of the Brandens she promotes--and the fundy stuff in general, but that was there before I came along. That's one of the reasons I never went to her site to participate in it. My concern is with this forum. Here, everyone speaks for himself or herself, but there are limits--and flexibility. (Please see the posting guidelines for an overview.)

So stay tuned means... er... stay tuned.

This thing should be offline, anyway, but I am pissed that Ms. Speicher was so rude to Kat. I will not post her email verbatim since I do not do that. That's wrong unless it is something that can be called "fair use." But that does not mean she will get off scot-free trying to run a neurotic power trip on Kat. Ms. Speicher wants to show her behind to Kat and try to bully her, so I say let's show it in all its glory to everyone.

If she wants to pipe down and resolve this in a more cordial manner, I can do that, too. Actually, I prefer it that way.

I can get real complicated if pushed. Ask some other people who have tangled with me, say Perigo and Valliant for starters. But don't listen to their bluster since they are both proven liars. Just ask them if I'm a good dude or something like that and their answer and behavior will say everything. I can give you some choice quotes online if you like. For instance, Valliant once threatened me with a lawsuit ("put me on notice"), but it was bluster and bullying based on nothing concrete. And I didn't back down. I hate bullying, but I don't hate standing up to bullies. I wear their insults and spite like a badge of honor as I neutralize the evil they try to do to others by discrediting them and helping those who think like I do. Also, start here if you like--a good portion of those insults came from Perigo. I have not updated that post since 2007 or thereabouts, so there is a hell of a lot more out there--just Google it...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If I were in your position, I'd be in no hurry to conclude that I owed Betsy Speicher anything.

Robert,

Who said anything about being in a hurry or being in debt to Ms. Speicher?

Not me...

Michael

[william.scherk]

You're announcing that you MIGHT censor me and that I should "stay tuned"?

I don't censor and I don't submit to intimidation

Good call.

Strip away Betsy's bluster and apparent rudeness, and realize it is embarrassment she wants expunged, not words. But she should be embarrassed for her ridiculous notion of a 'message in a bottle' and she should be embarrassed for the timorous Kremlin line she peddled. That line is subject to critique. whether it comes from a bottle, from ARI's airhole, from the OAC guidance committee, or wheresoever. The OAC-side talking points have been unveiled, and they suck. They invite not only criticism, but scorn.

That is what ridicule is for, to scorn, to lance, to embarrass and to shock, to jolt somebody into seeing their own behaviour in critical relief.

Further Speicher efforts to have Starbuckle's report on the secret message removed, that further references to Starbuckle's report be removed -- these efforts invite only further scorn for the same old Silent Treatment Speicher has been peddling all along . . . since she shut down discussion at THEFRM and since she popped her little missive in its bottles and since said to herself, "I hope no one ever finds out what I think" and set her thoughts bobbing off in the dark stream of the internets.

When will Speicher figure out she is on the dumbass side this time?

Edited October 13, 2010 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

<p>On a tangent, but showing the relative rankings of Oist site traffic as ranked by Danielle Morrill at her site in a post called "Who’s Actually Getting Read in Objectivism (Online)." </p><br><br>

<blockquote><p><strong>Popular Objectivism Related Websites</strong></p><br>

<ol>

<li><a href="

http://www.aynrand.org">Ayn

Rand Institute</a> – 48,886 uniques (this is down 43% from a year ago)</li>

<li><a href="

http://capitalismmagazine.com">Capitalism

Magazine</a> – 21,807 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com">The

Objective Standard</a> – 19,076 uniques <em>*provided by author</em></li>

<li><a href="

http://www.dianahsieh.com/">Diana

Hsieh</a> – 15,272 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.solopassion.com/">Sense

of Life Objectivist</a>s – 13,097 uniques <em>*provided by author</em></li>

<li><em> </em><a href="

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html">NobleSoul.com</a>

– 11,983 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://aynrandlexicon.com/">Ayn

Rand Lexicon</a> – 9,691 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.atlassociety.org/">The

Atlas Society</a> (The Objectivist Center) – 8,800 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://rebirthofreason.com/">RebirthofReason.com</a>

– 7,937 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/">Ayn

Rand Bookstore</a> – 6,846 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.theatlasphere.com">The

Atlasphere</a> (the dating site) – 6,684</li>

<li><a href="

http://objectivismonline.net/">ObjectivismOnline</a>

– 6,647 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.4AynRandFans.com">Forum

4AynRandFans.com</a> (Betsey Speicher)- 6,110 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.peikoff.com">Leonard

Peikoff</a> – 6,002 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.geekpress.com">Paul

Hsieh</a> – 5,344 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.muditajournal.com/">Mudita

Journal</a> – 4,954 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.ObjectivistLiving.com">ObjectivistLiving.com</a>

– 4,708 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://the-undercurrent.com/">The

Undercurrent</a> – 4,040 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.aynrandcenter.org">The

Ayn Rand Center</a> – 3,721 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.arc-tv.com">Ayn

Rand Center TV</a> – 2,679 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.newclarion.com">The

New Clarion</a> – 2,471 uniques <em>*provided by author</em></li>

<li><a href="

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/">Nathaniel

Branden</a> – 2,430 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.treygivens.com">Trey

Givens</a> – 1,815 uniques <em>*provided in comments</em></li>

<li><a href="

http://www.randex.org">Randex.org</a>

– 1,512 uniques <em>*provided by author</em></li>

<li><a href="

http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/">Free

Colorado by Ari Armstrong</a> – 1,440 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://Capitalism.net">Capitalism.net</a>

(George Reisman) – 1,191 uniques</li>

<li><a href="

http://www.daniellemorrill.com">Danielle

Morrill</a> (this site) – 1,081 uniques <em>*provided by author</em></li>

</ol></blockquote>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I just made a thread about the stats (your post crossed with my thread):

Some Stats

btw - I was going to save this tidbit for later, but what the hell.

Ms. Speicher--in her righteous indignation--did not have any compunction against sending the email you sent to her to Kat.

Yup.

She demands obedience to her commands regarding her "intellectual property," yet she sends a private email she receives from you (your "intellectual property") to a person she does not know (Kat). I presume she did not ask you for your permission to do that.

If not, that's not cool. That's not consistent. That's not principled.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Since Betsy Speicher does not want her statement on Robert Tracinski's "Anthemgate" to be published or forwarded without her permission, I'll just paraphrase it, as closely as I can so that it can be subject to the public analysis and criticism that she was hoping to avoid in the name of promoting rational discourse.

In her first paragraph she says something on the order of how Robert Tracinski is an extraordinary journalist who always sticks to the facts and that his recently published controversial article is no exception.

Then she supplies the link to his article criticizing Piekoff: http://www.intellect...cle.php?id=1234

Speicher then says that most of what Tracinski cites are matters she has known about for years. That what he has done, in making them public for the first time, is provide links to original sources and a context which makes them understandable. She urges concerned Objectivists to read Tracinski's article and the links he provides.

She says that while she agrees with the facts Tracinski presents, she seriously disagrees with some of the major conclusions he draws from them.

She says that her biggest disagreement is with the subtitle "The Objectivist Movement Commits Suicide." That although there have been recent controversies among Objectivists and some of them may be harmful, she doesn't think Objectivism as a philosophical movement or ARI as an institution has been fatally, or even seriously, wounded. And that it would not be a good thing if it were.

She says that while ARI and its activities are not the ONLY way to spread Objectivism, she believes that it is definitely a major and necessary institution. That it represents a gathering of money and talent that can accomplish worthy goals on a scale that individuals and small groups cannot possibly do. She asks whether anything less than ARI could spread Objectivism as effectively as ARI's essay contests, free books to teachers, OAC, media department, and its support of campus clubs and scholars.

She asks whether ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence as Tracinski claims and answers that in a way, it does -- and that this is a "GOOD thing." [Oh dear.] She says that ARI's mission is -- or should be -- to preserve, teach, and promote Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. And that to preserve Ayn Rand's legacy, ARI has to LIMIT themselves to the philosophy and ideas she ACTUALLY supported and not teach or promote anything else or in addition to that, no matter how true, worthy, or consistent it is with Objectivism. [They should limit themselves to ads and photocopying?] She adds that if someone was inspired by Ayn Rand and, using methods that conformed to her epistemology, discovered a cure for cancer, that would be wonderful, but it should not be taught or promoted with ARI resources.

She says that those accepting ARI's support should conform to ARI's mission in the same way people working for a large corporation should support the company's goals as set out by upper management. [sigh.] She says that this is necessary and proper for the corporation -- or for ARI -- to do its job. That a young person just starting out may join a corporation to learn the business or he may become an OAC student to learn Objectivism. That both thereby acquire support, education, and guidance and that is very important in the beginning. That after a while, the young employee may seek new opportunities or want to work in a new direction incompatible with the corporation's goals, so he will leave the company to work elsewhere or to start his own business. In likewise manner, she concludes, an OAC student may eventually have an independent career in academia, do research and writing in areas of his personal interest, and/or expand or use Ayn Rand's ideas in ways that are outside the scope of ARI's concerns. And that this "is fine too."

She says she thinks ARI got into trouble when they DID NOT limit themselves to preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand and began teaching and promoting ideas that Ayn Rand did not advocate and never endorsed. That these include Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis and Peikoff's lectures and Harriman's book on induction. That these may be worthy and ground-breaking, but they are NOT Objectivism and should not be treated as such. [Me: what difference does it make whether they are "treated as Objectivism" or not? As long as the author doesn't claim "these are the thoughts that were in Ayn Rand's head, and I'm merely transcribing them" (as Peikoff did in his book on Objectivism)?] She asserts that if these new ideas should prove false or incompatible with Ayn Rand's, presenting them as "Objectivist" could harm the spread of Ayn Rand's actual ideas in the same way that the medieval Scholastics' co-opting and misrepresenting Aristotle harmed Aristotle's reputation. [Oh dear. If only we had means of communication and debate that were unavailable to the medievals.]

Speicher says that ARI's decision to include and support these new ideas along with Ayn Rand's was a mistake. [she says nothing about their dogmatic approach, its manifestations or genesis, and whether the "mistake" of fostering the development of non-Rand ideas would have been a mistake without the dogmatism.] She says that perhaps it was a mistake the board members were aware of, did not want to make, but did not have much choice about. She observes that Leonard Peikoff advanced and promoted these ideas and HE considered them part of Objectivism and refers to Peikoff's web site (http://tinyurl.com/2c96lye), where he writes that his lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" "present, for the first time, the OBJECTIVIST solution to the problem of induction..."

She writes that Leonard Peikoff's views cannot be ignored or dismissed. [No matter how loony or unintelligible they get, presumably.] That in addition to the respect he deserves based on his enormous contributions to Objectivism [only the Rand-approved portion of Peikoff?], HE CONTROLS THE ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, AYN RAND'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE USE OF HER NAME. [Emphasis mine. Gee, no wonder his views can't be ignored.] That ARI cannot even call itself the "Ayn Rand" Institute without Peikoff's permission. That, thus, when Peikoff reminded Arline Mann "I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism," she doesn't regard it as simply an appeal to authority but as a reminder that without Peikoff's approval and consent, ARI could not function at all. [Golly, isn't it obviously BOTH?]

According to Speicher, if she were a board member faced with the choice to support Peikoff's ideas as a part of Objectivism or to accede to his demands, she might find it necessary to accommodate him even if she did not agree [intellectual honesty and independence having been demoted as virtues]. She might consider it one of those things, like complying with government regulations, that one has to do to stay in business and continue to do genuinely important and valuable things. [Peikoff as government bureaucrat whom one must obey. Because obeying his dictates "advances Objectivism," whatever THAT is. Okay.]

Speicher says that the bottom line is that the current controversy is not a good thing, but it is not fatal or suicidal. In her view, ARI, despite its support for ideas that she does not consider properly "Objectivist" [in the sense of being Ayn Rand's ideas or Ayn-Rand-approved ideas] offers too much of genuine value to her and to kindred Objectivists, to abandon it now. She expects that enough Objectivists will agree and continue to support the good work of ARI -- as well as the work of independent Objectivists, like Robert Tracinski, John McCaskey, and others, who may challenge or disagree with some of ARI's positions and actions. [so both the dependent, self-abnegating Objectivists and independent Objectivists can BOTH thrive! We can all get along! At least until the next undeconstructable loony Peikovian dictat! Woo hoo!] The end.

[There's a giant equivocation in all this. If BS thinks it would be good to have an organization that does nothing but publicize Rand's work, and if ARI can't do anything beyond that without becoming destructively dogmatic thanks to Peikoff's irrational rule, a view that has been argued on this board, fine. (I think it should just dissolve and hire a publicist to promote Rand's work given its irremediable dogmatism, but that it's certainly possible for an organization to foster discussion and application of rational-egoist-individualist work without the dogmatism. There are schools and journals and things. All one would have to do is steer clear of this notion that it's so important to equate the term "Objectivist" with "printout of what's in AR's mind" [she's dead, by the way], obey the stifling nonsensical dictats of authority figures like Peikoff, etc.) But BS is also arguing that ARI should be preserved and supported even though it has gone far beyond this mission and by her own admission requires "young" (and not-so-young) thinkers and scholars to subordinate their intellectual understanding and public statements to ARIan rule.

[Ergo, in her view, being dependent-minded and irrational is completely consistent with the values of promoting independent-mindedness and rationality (albeit perhaps not actually BEING independent-minded and rational). Is that the implication of a philosophy of rational individualism, let alone law-of-identity-ism? BS thinks the great danger is that the world will get the wrong view of Rand's ideas. Um, people have been getting the wrong view of philosophers' ideas since Thales argued that the basic stuff of reality is green cheese. Let's pray Rand doesn't go out of print and then comes back to the West via bin-Laden-approved Islamic mis-translation! No, the not-so-great and waning danger is that obsequious yes men in the name of a philosophy of rational individualism will be forever teaching other allegedly independent-minded rational men to be obsequious yes-men and touting this as consistent with the idea of being independent-minded and rational.

[i agree with BS that "ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence." I don't agree that this is so swell when she says it's swell, though I agree with her that it's not-swell when she implies that it's not-swell. Well. I would add that BS, who makes a gigantic concession and then stifles the obvious conclusion, is a fellow stifler, and I suspect that her way of publishing but not-publishing her BS will not be a successful way of deluding the select recipients and those to whom they whisper confidential information into believing that acceding to the process of turning alleged champions of independent thought into regimented drones is acceptable, despite the problems with it, so long as the alleged "benefits" of being a hypocritical drone exceed the Rand-documented costs. Gee, it's stifling in here. Somebody open the window.]

So long as the above is indeed a paraphrase and not significantly verbatim, Speicher has no copyright grounds to demand that it be taken down from here. Unless she entered into some sort of contract with Starbuckle, she has no recourse their either, and even if Speicher did have a valid contract with her readers, it would not bind this website or third parties.

Any actions the moderator takes here would be courtesies.

Courtesies.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ted Keer

[william.scherk]

Ms. Speicher--in her righteous indignation--did not have any compunction against sending the email you sent to her to Kat.

Yup.

She demands obedience to her commands regarding her "intellectual property," yet she sends a private email she receives from you (your "intellectual property") to a person she does not know (Kat). I presume she did not ask you for your permission to do that.

It's grey to me. She needn't ask my permission to send my email directly to you or Kat, should needn't feel icky doing that nor feel icky sending it out to her message-in-a-bottle secret CC list.

I view these things like letters. If Betsy sent me a letter, the 'intellectual property' of the letter might be said to belong to her, but I am free to share its contents as I would any other letter ("I received a letter from the psychotic Mrs Grundy. In it she rants 'blah blah blabbity blah' . . ."). I can, if I wish, hand the letter around to colleagues.

I can share that letter directly with you or Starbuckle or my lawyer or whomsoever I desire. Same with an email. It doesn't go into an inbox as if entering a safe.

Under certain circumstances I might go beyond sharing the contents of the letter hand to hand. I might paraphrase some of or the entire content and make that public, or if I felt the sender's expectations of privacy were outweighed by its threatening or scurrilous or defamatory content, I might publish it in its entirety, and let a hundred flowers bloom.

I like what PZ Myers does on his site. He tells readers that he reserves the right to publish any email sent to him, at his sole discretion, and he publishes entire missives including headers when he sees fit (for example, today).

This is what happens when discussion is squelched or when folks go snaky and when folks send evasive, belligerent, or overweening backchannels. Here's the note to Speicher. Feel free to paraphrase Speicher's rantback on WSS . . . it will be instructive. When you tip a rock all sorts of things squirm out.

"

Hi Betsy,

I am sure you won't be reconsidering making your private commentary on the Peikoff/Harriman/ARI/McCaskey/Tracinski kerfuffle public, but I thought to let you know that the first lengthy 'paraphrase' of your commentary has now appeared.

This will have wide circulation, as OL is a secret treat for a lot of Objectivish folk, and is the most-read online Objectivish-leaning community outside the Atlasphere.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9169&st=400&p=110845entry110845

"

Bottom line: some fence-sitters don't want their timorous bootlicking to be belittled. Too bad. Speicher can go piss up a rope.

Edited October 13, 2010 by william.scherk

[sjw]

Contra Scherk, it is uncouth to be sharing private emails amongst friends, and highly uncouth to be doing it publicly.

Perhaps some might view this as a matter of taste. What kind of friend do you prefer? One who takes liberty to broadcast all of your private communications to the world, or one that uses discretion?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I, myself, don't care if my emails are sent around. (I don't send around the ones I receive, though, except to really close people like Kat.)

I have made a habit of not saying things in emails to others that I would not be prepared to own up to. (Sometimes I will ask for discretion if I don't want to needlessly hurt someone's feelings, but even then, if the person passes it on, I have no problem owning up.)

I aired my own dirty laundry in public some time ago (former alcoholic, drug addict, underworld, etc.), so I am a difficult target to blackmail or intimidate.

I don't give a crap about embarrassment, either. Obviously, I have some things I prefer to not advertise. But if they get spread around, to hell with it. Let the people who do the spreading reap the rewards of their efforts. (There's both sides of this coin, too. In Brazil, they say that a bird that swallows stones knows the size of its own anus. Those with street smarts know you should never fight a person with nothing to lose. He will royally kick your butt.)

Nor am I too concerned about nitpicking the legal aspects of intellectual property on forums in the current Information age. This is definitely one area that is in tumult and new definitions are being made every day--some of which will eventually become new laws. In practice, common sense is more valuable than anything else right now. I have some personal standards I use irrespective of laws and opinions of others. If I believe something is wrong, I don't need anyone else to say it's wrong for me to act.

Also, if a lot of money starts getting involved, I will tighten and align my standards to avoid litigation. Money's the only real reason people sue in the vast majority of copyright cases. Control freaks don't like it when you say any of this, but that's the reality we currently live in. I have no problem with recognizing it and living with it.

I am concerned with consistency, though. If a person demands of me me that I operate according to one standard, then gets caught with her pants down not using the same standard in her own actions, that's hypocrisy.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

William,

I just made a thread about the stats (your post crossed with my thread):

Some Stats

btw - I was going to save this tidbit for later, but what the hell.

Ms. Speicher--in her righteous indignation--did not have any compunction against sending the email you sent to her to Kat.

Yup.

She demands obedience to her commands regarding her "intellectual property," yet she sends a private email she receives from you (your "intellectual property") to a person she does not know (Kat). I presume she did not ask you for your permission to do that.

If not, that's not cool. That's not consistent. That's not principled.

Michael

I strongly suggest that you do whatever Ms. Sphincter orders you to do. Who knows? -- with a little Vaseline and leather wear, it might be a pleasurable experience.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

The damndest thing...

I just felt a thrill go up my leg...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George,

The damndest thing...

I just felt a thrill go up my leg...

Michael

I must confess to being deeply disappointed in you and other OLers with a sense of humor. When I read your initial post, the similarly between "Speicher" and "Sphincter" leapt out at me like big tits in a Russ Meyer flick. (Only older guys who used to frequent One-Dollar-Per-Car-Drive-In-Theaters will appreciate this reference.) But I had someplace to go, and by the time I returned four hours later, I figured that several posters would have beaten me to the punch. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the obvious had remained unstated.

Ghs