New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Brant Gaede]

No shit!

And only now this comes to me. Brant, how can I thank you for your profound, pedantically petulant, and far from obvious edufication.

By not replying to my posts?

--Brant

not trying to help

[Peter]

Jonathan wrote:

There's really only one or two ways to repair the damage . . . And when you fear peer review, resent constructive criticism, and use whatever power you think you have to silence those who offer corrections to your errors, you'll have earned not only marginalization, but contempt.

End quote

Repair the damage. Hmmm? I can think of another Objectivist analogy. Ah, come on, Jonathan, just one more.

Modern Objectivism using the cured salami analogy.

Aged Italian salami has a peculiar odor. If you had never eaten any and someone asked you to, “Take a whiff of this mystery meat,” you would tell them, “Whew! Smells like mold! Throw it out!”

But if you came upon a milder product, or gate of entry cured meat from Chef Boyardee, titled “Atlas Eats Salami while drinking elixir from The Fountainhead” in your teens or twenties, and you really, really liked it, you would then be able to appreciate today’s moldy version of Objectivism at the ARI.

Yet at some point you notice the loyalty oath ingredients: Leave your independent thoughts at the door, product contains excess salt, preservatives, and dissent not tolerated, with the Government Warning: “Nearly everyone who has been involved with this ARI meat advices you that it may be hazardous to your mental health.”

So you switch to Philly Cheese Steak Subs sold by The Atlas Society and Objectivist Center made with 100 percent pure Angus beef, with no pork, mold, salt, fillers, or mental health warnings.

Of course for those of you who were there, when the sandwich was made, in the nine-teen fifties, sixties or seventies, substitute Ayn Rand for the Ayn Rand Institute Salami.

The Philly Cheese Steak Objectivism Club Sub does have one caveat or Notice: condiments like libertarianism, anarchism, and slavish abeyance to a higher philosophical authority are still not advised.

Independent Objectivist,

Peter Taylor

[Starbuckle]

James HN wrote: "No, Starbuckle. I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized."

What do you mean? There has already been critical discussion of Harriman's book by persons who were never in the ARI orbit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Small note.

The issue I raised earlier about Starbuckle publishing Ms. Speicher's thoughts on the Peikoff-Harriman-McCaskey mess seems to have died a natural death. The post went into the ether of previous thread pages and nobody is talking about her views on the mess anywhere on the Internet that I can discern.

So I am just going to let the thing be--at least for now. It's not productive for anyone and it's not worth messing with.

Michael

[Starbuckle]

Robert Campbell wrote: "But if you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of Rand-land, you are obviously right.

"No history or philosophy of science journal is likely to review Harriman's opus. I wonder whether his publisher has bothered to send the review copies.

"David Harriman's book will draw no more attention outside of Rand-land than Jim Valliant's has."

This may be so, but it's not as if there are only 47 books published per year. A great many books in or out of any movement have trouble getting any notice.

I haven't read Harriman's book yet, but Valliant's is a glaringly sectarian screed that is painful to read more than four and a half words of at a time. From everything I've seen pro and con Harriman, his book is not in that category. Obviously The Logical Leap will get the most immediate attention from Objectivist circles, as is true of other books of most apparent interest to various ideological camps. But if Harriman's book survives, whether its arguments are right or wrong or mixed, it can have a long-term influence whether or not it is reviewed in journals, and perhaps even end up referenced in the works of philosophers of science. Would a non-Ob student writing a paper on induction never stumble across references to Harriman's book?

In addition to which, in this age of the Internet and the e-book, no work of any value at all will so easily lapse into permanent obscurity as was once the case. If all the arguments about how the dissemination of ideas can these days readily take place outside of official academic venues are valid, notices in the journals are important but not determinative of the ultimate fate of Harriman's book. Granted, the partisan orthodoxy of Harriman and associates doesn't help, but let's not consign his volume to mainstream oblivion just yet.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I doubt that any reviews or criticisms will come from without. In scientific venues when you don't seek out and utilize peer review, you are completely marginalized.

Jim,

If you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of the Ayn Rand Institute, I think you are mistaken. For instance, Harriman's book will be reviewed, and almost certainly further discussed, in the pages of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, where no ARIan presently dares to contribute and few will admit reading.

But if you mean no reviews or criticisms will come from outside of Rand-land, you are obviously right.

No history or philosophy of science journal is likely to review Harriman's opus. I wonder whether his publisher has bothered to send the review copies.

David Harriman's book will draw no more attention outside of Rand-land than Jim Valliant's has.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Yes. I meant outside Rand-land. I look forward to any and all articles and reviews of the book in JARS, on Amazon and elsewhere. If Logical Leap at least serves as a foil to be argued against, having those arguments will mean progress in the Objectivist movement.

Jim

[Dennis Hardin]

FYI

There are mentions of the Harriman book on several non-Objectivist, science-related websites. Obviously a number of review copies of the book were sent out by the publisher.

Science Shelf Book Review

scibooks.org

National Science Teachers Association

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

[Jerry Biggers]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

I recall several statements by Rand where she expressly stated that Objectivism consists entirely and exclusively of her ideas (and ideas published with her sanction). By this standard, you are correct; Objectivism became "closed" after her death, and Peikoff has no business presenting his own ideas as part of Objectivism. He tries to get around this by presenting himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," which presumably qualifies him to channel Rand's thoughts, or at least her approval, from the grave.

Btw, I have seen "kerfuffle" used more often on OL during the past few days than I have during the rest of my life. Have we been invaded by Brits?

Ghs

Ayn Rand may have declared that, since she invented Objectivism, that she has the right to claim both ownership and to give her imprimatur to anyone else that she felt was in complete agreement with her system. At least, when she was alive. However, after her death, neither her purported "intellectual heir" nor ARI, can claim that right. At her demise, it was left to the individual reader to decide that issue for himself.

In the history of ideas, the devoted followers of various religious and ideological leaders have claimed that they, and they alone, were the "true" heirs of their departed leaders, and that all others claiming that distinction were misinformed, bogus, charlatans, or worse. History has not been kind to these claims. Hence, the myriad versions of Marxism and Christian denominations, all claiming to be the "true" faith.

As has been observed here, Peikoff has gotten himself into a logical contradiction (the Objectivist version of a a secular "hell") by first declaring that Objectivism is a "closed" system that included only what Rand had wrote or approved of before her death, and then asserting (or implying) that his unfortunately named "DIM Hypothesis" and Harriman's The Logical Leap are somehow also within the canon or near-canonical status. This classification schema is uncomfortably close to "official" Christendom's un-ending dilemma about what to do with the Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphal (aka, the "lost books") scriptures of the Bible.

Or, more colloquially speaking, Peikoff has screwed himself.

[Dennis Hardin]

It is important that we get our history straight regarding Peikoff's claim to the status of Rand's "intellectual heir," since his authority to "close" her philosophy seems largely contingent on that. Anne Heller makes clear that this posturing by Peikoff is bogus.

Peikoff: The Great Pretender

[James Heaps-Nelson]

FYI

There are mentions of the Harriman book on several non-Objectivist, science-related websites. Obviously a number of review copies of the book were sent out by the publisher.

Science Shelf Book Review

scibooks.org

National Science Teachers Association

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

Dennis,

Interesting! We'll see what happens.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult. This is why I've dreaded for years the thought of the book's ever being finished and published. Since I'd heard the core lecture from Peikoff's "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" course and a set of lectures from prior to 1999 by Harriman, part of which discussed history of science issues, I anticipated what the book would say.

I keep thinking of the ARI booth at the last two Heartland conferences, and of there being some hopeful signs of scientists in attendance becoming interested by the philosophy of free-market economics. If that book is displayed at the booth at the next conference and talked up by the ARI representatives...groan. Very wet blanket for any interest of scientists in looking further into what Objectivism might offer.

Ellen

[Selene]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult. This is why I've dreaded for years the thought of the book's ever being finished and published. Since I'd heard the core lecture from Peikoff's "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" course and a set of lectures from prior to 1999 by Harriman, part of which discussed history of science issues, I anticipated what the book would say.

I keep thinking of the ARI booth at the last two Heartland conferences, and of there being some hopeful signs of scientists in attendance becoming interested by the philosophy of free-market economics. If that book is displayed at the booth at the next conference and talked up by the ARI representatives...groan. Very wet blanket for any interest of scientists in looking further into what Objectivism might offer.

Ellen

Ellen:

Understanding that I have absolutely no knowledge of this entire period of internal war withing these core groups. And, except for my knowledge of Barbara at NBI prior to 1968 and any interactions that I have experienced here at OL in the last three years, I am not on any one side or another.

My question to you, in terms of this specific post and only this post, is, if we are all dedicated to the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads, why would it be so terrible if it were to

confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult.

If, Objectivism, as Dr. Peikoff has represented it, is a "crackpot cult" [your words], then better that dead vestigial arm of Ayn's philosophy die now. Out of those ashes, we can build a valuable school of thought.

Adam

[sjw]

if we are all dedicated to the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads, ...

Wouldn't that be nice.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult.

How many of these scientists have actually read Rand for themselves? Relatively few, I would wager.

The notion that Objectivism is a "crackpot cult" -- not only the Peikovian branch but Objectivism in general -- has been around ever since Rand became popular. Moral philosophers have said that about her ethical theory, political philosophers about her political philosophy, and so forth, so your "scientists" -- who are probably far more ignorant about philosophy than most Objectivists are about science -- are scarcely unique.

Legitimate criticisms can be made of Harriman's book, but it is not the work of a "crackpot."

Ghs

[James Heaps-Nelson]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult. This is why I've dreaded for years the thought of the book's ever being finished and published. Since I'd heard the core lecture from Peikoff's "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" course and a set of lectures from prior to 1999 by Harriman, part of which discussed history of science issues, I anticipated what the book would say.

I keep thinking of the ARI booth at the last two Heartland conferences, and of there being some hopeful signs of scientists in attendance becoming interested by the philosophy of free-market economics. If that book is displayed at the booth at the next conference and talked up by the ARI representatives...groan. Very wet blanket for any interest of scientists in looking further into what Objectivism might offer.

Ellen

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

[sjw]

Legitimate criticisms can be made of Harriman's book, but it is not the work of a "crackpot."

Ghs

On the other hand:

(From http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html)

Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM

From: DAVID HARRIMAN

To: Paul Hsieh

Subject: Re: Question about McCaskey's criticisms of your book?

Dear Paul:

I don't think you need access to private emails in order to reach a judgment on this conflict.

Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian). Anyone who is interested can read my book, read the writings of McCaskey, and come to their own judgment.

I realize that most people know little about the history of science, and so they may believe that they lack the specialized knowledge required to make a judgment in this case. But I do not think the basic issues are very complicated.

McCaskey claims that Galileo discovered the law of free fall without even understanding what is meant by "free fall" (since Galileo allegedly had no clear concept of friction). Likewise, Newton discovered his universal laws of motion without understanding the concepts of "inertia," "acceleration," and "momentum." In effect, scientists stumble around in the dark and somehow discover laws of nature before they grasp the constituent concepts. This view is typical of academic philosophers of science today. I am well acquainted with it; in my youth, I took courses from Paul Feyerabend at UC Berkeley. But how believable is it?

In short, I ask you which is more believable -- that Isaac Newton was fundamentally confused about the difference between "impetus" and "momentum," or that John McCaskey is confused about this issue?

A favorite pastime among academics today is to find "feet of clay" in great men. But that is not the purpose of my book.

Sincerely,

David

Edited October 17, 2010 by sjw

[kiaer.ts]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult. This is why I've dreaded for years the thought of the book's ever being finished and published. Since I'd heard the core lecture from Peikoff's "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" course and a set of lectures from prior to 1999 by Harriman, part of which discussed history of science issues, I anticipated what the book would say.

I keep thinking of the ARI booth at the last two Heartland conferences, and of there being some hopeful signs of scientists in attendance becoming interested by the philosophy of free-market economics. If that book is displayed at the booth at the next conference and talked up by the ARI representatives...groan. Very wet blanket for any interest of scientists in looking further into what Objectivism might offer.

Ellen

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

The fact that as it has been formulated, Objectivist epistemology is primarily linguistic, rather than mathematical or imagery based, doesn't mean it won't work with ideas expressed in those forms. It just reflects Rand's characteristic form of thought as a polyglot and author, and to an extent, the limitations of the small minds that have followed her under Peikoff.

Consider, for example, Kelley's seminal work. It goes beyond Rand, and is not tied down to the merely word based mind. I still believe Kelley's ouster had nothing to do with the political excuse that was given to justify it, and was solely based on professional jealousy.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ted Keer

[James Heaps-Nelson]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult.

How many of these scientists have actually read Rand for themselves? Relatively few, I would wager.

The notion that Objectivism is a "crackpot cult" -- not only the Peikovian branch but Objectivism in general -- has been around ever since Rand became popular. Moral philosophers have said that about her ethical theory, political philosophers about her political philosophy, and so forth, so your "scientists" -- who are probably far more ignorant about philosophy than most Objectivists are about science -- are scarcely unique.

Legitimate criticisms can be made of Harriman's book, but it is not the work of a "crackpot."

Ghs

George,

The criticisms that you would get from most scientists would likely be more strident than the terrifically cogent criticisms John McCaskey and Travis Norsen have offered. The reason is that their experience of the process of scientific discovery is likely largely different than what is described by Harriman. If I wanted to write a book on scientific discovery and how it occurs, I would interview top living scientists themselves across a range of fields and look for patterns in how they do science. Other approaches seem second best.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

that is quite insightful. Making a physics theory to explain and order a selected set of facts is as much an artistic crea. tion as is a painting or a sculpture. Einstein put it this way: A theory is a free creation of the mind. Given a finite set of facts there are an infinite set of theories or hypotheses that will fit those facts. Formulating hypotheses, laws and theories requires an intuition that makes science building an art form.

Theories do not leap from heaps of facts the way a frog jumps from a lily pad or do theories ares the way Pallas Athena explodes from the head of Zeus. Facts alone do not determine theories. The best example I can think of was Kelkule's dream of a snake swallowing its tail. This was the dream clue that lead Kelkule for formulate the benzine ring

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 18, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

If I wanted to write a book on scientific discovery and how it occurs, I would interview top living scientists themselves across a range of fields and look for patterns in how they do science. Other approaches seem second best.

I think you need to actually have done work that substantially advances the state of knowledge in some field before you're going to preach about how it's done, otherwise you'd have no basis for recognizing whether someone was "top" or not. If Harriman thinks that physicists are screwed up and wants to tell them how to think, then why doesn't he apply his own method and advance the state of the art? His approach is the opposite of Rand. She got a solid idea of how to create in her area of expertise before she started preaching about how to think. He wants to reverse cause and effect. He hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy in his field (correct me if I'm wrong), but now he wants to preach about how it's done. Ridiculous.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

We might well be seeing more detailed and critical science journal reviews by non-Randians in the year ahead. Even if the reviews tend to be highly critical of Objectivism, the additional exposure for Objectivist epistemology has to be a positive thing.

I strongly disagree. That book's being reviewed in science publications would serve to confirm the prevailing opinion amongst scientists that Objectivism is a crackpot cult. This is why I've dreaded for years the thought of the book's ever being finished and published. Since I'd heard the core lecture from Peikoff's "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" course and a set of lectures from prior to 1999 by Harriman, part of which discussed history of science issues, I anticipated what the book would say.

I keep thinking of the ARI booth at the last two Heartland conferences, and of there being some hopeful signs of scientists in attendance becoming interested by the philosophy of free-market economics. If that book is displayed at the booth at the next conference and talked up by the ARI representatives...groan. Very wet blanket for any interest of scientists in looking further into what Objectivism might offer.

Ellen

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

The fact that as it has been formulated, Objectivist epistemology is primarily linguistic, rather than mathematical or imagery based, doesn't mean it won't work with ideas expressed in those forms. It just reflects Rand's characteristic form of thought as a polyglot and author, and to an extent, the limitations of the small minds that have followed her under Peikoff.

Consider, for example, Kelley's seminal work. It goes beyond Rand, and is not tied down to the merely word based mind. I still believe Kelley's ouster had nothing to do with the political excuse that was given to justify it, and was solely based on professional jealousy.

Ted,

As you have mentioned and I have mentioned in different places, Objectivist epistemology does fit with the current best structural models of neocortical organization. Measurement omission is likely driven by invariant representation and pattern recognition within one neocortical layer and concept formation preserving that information with measurements omitted could be analagous to sending a signal through a columan to a higher neocortical layer.

As you say, there is no reason that Objectivist epistemology could not be applied to visual and pattern imagery, but I'm not convinced that it is primary. My conjecture is that our preferences for particular modes for manipulating narratives of mental images (Damasio) are set in childhood when we begin to deal with visual, auditory and tactile stimuli and later with language. How each person develops neural connections and thinking patterns will depend in good measure on their brain structure, their chosen activities and their environment. Philosophical method or in the case of naturally developed thinking patterns, protophilosophy represents a kind of syntax for manipulating and creating narratives of mental images. This will vary widely from person to person. We can determine that the Objectivist epistemology is the best way to validate our concepts, but it doesn't follow that that is what is what is used in forming them.

To say that scientists use one method of manipulating symbols and images over another is something that has to be demonstrated.

Jim

[kiaer.ts]

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

The fact that as it has been formulated, Objectivist epistemology is primarily linguistic, rather than mathematical or imagery based, doesn't mean it won't work with ideas expressed in those forms. It just reflects Rand's characteristic form of thought as a polyglot and author, and to an extent, the limitations of the small minds that have followed her under Peikoff.

Consider, for example, Kelley's seminal work. It goes beyond Rand, and is not tied down to the merely word based mind. I still believe Kelley's ouster had nothing to do with the political excuse that was given to justify it, and was solely based on professional jealousy.

Ted,

As you have mentioned and I have mentioned in different places, Objectivist epistemology does fit with the current best structural models of neocortical organization. Measurement omission is likely driven by invariant representation and pattern recognition within one neocortical layer and concept formation preserving that information with measurements omitted could be analagous to sending a signal through a columan to a higher neocortical layer.

As you say, there is no reason that Objectivist epistemology could not be applied to visual and pattern imagery, but I'm not convinced that it is primary. My conjecture is that our preferences for particular modes for manipulating narratives of mental images (Damasio) are set in childhood when we begin to deal with visual, auditory and tactile stimuli and later with language. How each person develops neural connections and thinking patterns will depend in good measure on their brain structure, their chosen activities and their environment. Philosophical method or in the case of naturally developed thinking patterns, protophilosophy represents a kind of syntax for manipulating and creating narratives of mental images. This will vary widely from person to person. We can determine that the Objectivist epistemology is the best way to validate our concepts, but it doesn't follow that that is what is what is used in forming them.

To say that scientists use one method of manipulating symbols and images over another is something that has to be demonstrated.

Jim

I am not exactly sure what you mean by saying that whether scientists use one method over another needs to be demonstrated. Surely they use every one they find convenient. The important thing is that the underlying reality is the same.

Any given equation can be graphed, and any equation can be stated explicitly in the form of words alone. For example, the classic "If one train leaves Boston southbound at 11am going 50 mph and another leaves New York at noon going north at 60 miles an hour, at what time will they pass if the track is 150 miles long?" can be expressed in words, as a set of equations, or as a graph, each convertible into the other. Obviously the question is more easily solved using symbolic equations and the answer is directly apprehensible visually as the intersection of two sloping lines on a graph of time versus distance. Rand was apparently being tutored on such a level of math when she died. I think we both may be dismayed by the fact that there is no evidence Objectivist muckity mucks think in such terms. Indeed, is there any canonical Objectivist work that features diagrams?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Exactly. Imagine Harriman's conception of induction trying to deal with Feynman diagrams. The fact is that a lot of the scientific discovery process involves visual or pattern imagery and is not the kind of straightforward, logical or "rational" process that fits neatly into an Objectivist-friendly theory of induction. The validation is methodological and has an empirical and mathematically deductive form, but that process is secondary to the progress of science. Bob Kolker has detailed the origins of quantum theory starting with Planck, and Maxwell and Einstein's discoveries, as well as J.W. Gibbs' wholesale invention of the field of physical chemistry hardly fit into a neat inductive template.

Jim

The fact that as it has been formulated, Objectivist epistemology is primarily linguistic, rather than mathematical or imagery based, doesn't mean it won't work with ideas expressed in those forms. It just reflects Rand's characteristic form of thought as a polyglot and author, and to an extent, the limitations of the small minds that have followed her under Peikoff.

Consider, for example, Kelley's seminal work. It goes beyond Rand, and is not tied down to the merely word based mind. I still believe Kelley's ouster had nothing to do with the political excuse that was given to justify it, and was solely based on professional jealousy.

Ted,

As you have mentioned and I have mentioned in different places, Objectivist epistemology does fit with the current best structural models of neocortical organization. Measurement omission is likely driven by invariant representation and pattern recognition within one neocortical layer and concept formation preserving that information with measurements omitted could be analagous to sending a signal through a columan to a higher neocortical layer.

As you say, there is no reason that Objectivist epistemology could not be applied to visual and pattern imagery, but I'm not convinced that it is primary. My conjecture is that our preferences for particular modes for manipulating narratives of mental images (Damasio) are set in childhood when we begin to deal with visual, auditory and tactile stimuli and later with language. How each person develops neural connections and thinking patterns will depend in good measure on their brain structure, their chosen activities and their environment. Philosophical method or in the case of naturally developed thinking patterns, protophilosophy represents a kind of syntax for manipulating and creating narratives of mental images. This will vary widely from person to person. We can determine that the Objectivist epistemology is the best way to validate our concepts, but it doesn't follow that that is what is what is used in forming them.

To say that scientists use one method of manipulating symbols and images over another is something that has to be demonstrated.

Jim

I am not exactly sure what you mean by saying that whether scientists use one method over another needs to be demonstrated. Surely they use every one they find convenient. The important thing is that the underlying reality is the same.

Any given equation can be graphed, and any equation can be stated explicitly in the form of words alone. For example, the classic "If one train leaves Boston southbound at 11am going 50 mph and another leaves New York at noon going north at 60 miles an hour, at what time will they pass if the track is 150 miles long?" can be expressed in words, as a set of equations, or as a graph, each convertible into the other. Obviously the question is more easily solved using symbolic equations and the answer is directly apprehensible visually as the intersection of two sloping lines on a graph of time versus distance. Rand was apparently being tutored on such a level of math when she died. I think we both may be dismayed by the fact that there is no evidence Objectivist muckity mucks think in such terms. Indeed, is there any canonical Objectivist work that features diagrams?

I am saying that I would not find it surprising to find top scientists using something akin to pragmatic or dialectical methods in addition to empirical or analytical methods in developing theories as well as a wide variety of image or pattern modalities. As long as a given formulation can be validated, it does not matter what method was used in conceiving it.

Jim

[dsaum]

I have tried to persuade some non-Objectivist physicists to listen to Harriman's lectures such as his 6 hour "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics",

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CH54M

but they gave up in disgust after a little of Harriman's hyperbolic condemnation of great physicists and exaggeration of the number of physicists who are in agreement with some of the extreme interpretations of physics theories. I think there is a real danger that Harriman's intolerant approach could be interpreted as "Crackpot Physics" and bring real harm to Objectivism.

Physicist John Baez has a web page where he calculates a "CrackPot Physics Index" based on a score calculated from answers to a series of questions. Some of the questions are unfortunately close to Harriman's positions:

+10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

+10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

+10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

+30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

+40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.

+50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

(the more positive the index, the more crackpot the viewpoint)

For the complete index, see John Baez

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[sjw]

+10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

Why is it not important to know why something occurs? Let me guess: only "crackpot" would want to know "why" about any question; non-crackpots just believe whatever the majority says.

For the complete index, see John Baez

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Why do I care what John Baez thinks? Whoops, asked another "why"....

Shayne