New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[BaalChatzaf]

Now I'm going to need an emergency insulin shot.

Why?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Maybe you're right. I still say good for [biddle]. Many in this precinct have called for those from the ARI orbit to grow a set and step out of the shadows on this issue. At a minimum, Biddle has stepped out the shadows.

Two points stand out from Biddle's piece. He finds it unremarkable and completely acceptable that ARI has nothing whatsoever to say about the kerfuffle. He also finds Peikoff to be unjust in his moral condemnation.

I contrast this to the behind the scenes outrage of those benighted Objectivist Academic Centre students who not only find injustice in Peikoff's email denunuciation, but who also find a disgusting obiter dicta in the few official ARI/OAC instructions to date. I repost an excerpt from the announcement of a teleconference on November 8th.

For those of you who spend time on Facebook, you've likely become aware of various discussions on the internet by some Objectivists regarding Dr. John McCaskey's recent resignation from ARI's Board of Directors. We understand that some of you have questions, and more importantly, that some of you are genuinely struggling with how one should respond based on the limited public information and subsequent "chatter". We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does.

There will be no discussion, no further questions entertained during the teleconference. Submitted questions may or may not be answered by Brook and the two Ghates.

Silence is otherwise all anyone can expect from ARI and its educational arm, OAC.

I hope some brave OAC student will do his or her utmost to break through the crust that ARI loyalists are determined should seal the affair.

In a posting today, Diana Hsieh has made clear the bones of her and her husband`s forthcoming Judgement; support ARI silence and guidance down the line while tut-tutting over the injustice visited on McCaskey:

To forestall any confusions, Paul and I wanted to make one point clear now. Like Craig Biddle, we think that a person can judge Dr. Peikoff's ultimatum about and moral condemnation of Dr. McCaskey as wrong, while still very much respecting and admiring Dr. Peikoff and his achievements. Moreover, a person can do that while judging the Ayn Rand Institute to be blameless in this matter. That's basically Paul's and my view. We have some concerns about ARI's future, but we regard their silence on this matter as the right course. Unless something changes, we expect to continue our support of ARI.

Peikoff seems to have walled himself off from his supporters and from all calls to speak further to the issues . . .

Edited October 29, 2010 by william.scherk

[sjw]

To forestall any confusions, Paul and I wanted to make one point clear now. Like Craig Biddle, we think that a person can judge Dr. Peikoff's ultimatum about and moral condemnation of Dr. McCaskey as wrong, while still very much respecting and admiring Dr. Peikoff and his achievements. Moreover, a person can do that while judging the Ayn Rand Institute to be blameless in this matter. That's basically Paul's and my view. We have some concerns about ARI's future, but we regard their silence on this matter as the right course. Unless something changes, we expect to continue our support of ARI.

Peikoff seems to have walled himself off from his supporters and from all calls to speak further to the issues . . .

Basically, these people want to preserve to a maximum possible extent the delusions they've held year after year: on its face they are not able to reconcile Peikoff's behavior with reason, but by no means will they allow this contradiction be taken as a hint at any deeper problems. I.e., standard human behavior in the face of cognitive dissonance.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

Now I'm going to need an emergency insulin shot.

Why?

You know how Mary Poppins counselled “just a spoonful of sugar”? Ms. Zaravella overdid it.

[Neil Parille]

I'm surprised that no ARIans have mentioned that rewriting of Rand's papers and lectures sanctioned by Peikoff in this whole doneybrook.

-Neil Parille

[sjw]

I'm surprised that no ARIans have mentioned that rewriting of Rand's papers and lectures sanctioned by Peikoff in this whole doneybrook.

-Neil Parille

I'm not. They can't possibly allow themselves to consider whether they should have objected or not, because at every juncture they have to assert themselves as having been "moral in their context of knowledge."

I think this entire fiasco has so far been an exercise in them trying to construct the best possible interpretation that leaves them the most possible room to keep believing what they have always believed, but without being so absolutely absurd that they actually can't sleep at night.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does.

Ah, yes. Catholic officials also had some urgent conversions with Galileo "on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears...difficult to understand," i.e., the heliocentric theory of Copernicus -- or heliostatic theory, for those sticklers out there.

Around a week ago I had the pleasure of meeting a 25-year-old chess master (rated around 2200, and a former chess champion of Iowa), as he demolished me in a couple games of "speed" chess with a handicap. I got ten minutes; he got one minute; it was an embarrassing massacre nonetheless, as he, in one game, quickly announced a forced checkmate four moves in advance. ("Where do these people come from?" I asked myself, as I offered some lame excuses about how I normally don't stink so much.)

Anyway, it turns out this fellow, a grad student at ISU, wants to be a professional writer, so he peppered me with questions about writing, especially last night, when I saw him for the second time. He is also very interested in philosophy, and we have exchanged several emails over the past week. Last night I mentioned Rand in passing, and though he didn't vomit, I could tell by his reaction that the time had not yet come to press the issue. (His interest in "intuitive knowledge" -- a natural for a chess genius -- caused me to recommend Henri Bergson, and, after reading the Wiki article on Bergson, he was very pleased. Now all I need do is to explain how Bergson's ideas are compatible with Rand's -- no easy task. Since Jeff Riggenbach is the one who first insisted, many years ago, that I read Bergson, I will leave this task to him, should he happen to read this post.

I have established a lot of credibility with this highly intelligent young man, and I frankly resent the fact that I need to back off from Rand, at least for a while, because of the quasi-religious branch of the Objectivist movement.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I expect that for institutional reasons Biddle's piece is going to get the fireworks going again. He's taken Yaron Brook off the TOS masthead. Are these battle lines that are being drawn?

Looks like the ante has been upped overnight. According to this, Biddle's ARI sponsored events have been cancelled, notably 4 campus talks scheduled for next week.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BXMNIoGzmn0J:www.aynrand.org/events_ari_events+craig+biddle+ari&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_ari_events

Assuming ARI paid for the flights and hotel rooms, as they did back when I ran a campus club, it’s easy to see how they could pull the plug without the consent of the actual club leaders.

EDIT: I did a little extra research, the Kansas and Michigan club's sites still advertise the Biddle talk, Minnesota shows a talk by Lockitch instead, and I didn't find a site for the Wisconsin club.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[George H. Smith]

Craig “Bomb the Madrassas” Biddle has just weighed in on the McCaskey saga, but since he’s so late to the party it comes off as a ho-hum piece. He works in the obligatory fawning praise for Peikoff as he moves on to the obvious about the situation at hand. Ultimately, he’s asking for evidence from Peikoff, which is fair enough. Yet, one wonders whether he’s researched the Reisman split. Keep your expectations low, Mr. Biddle.

On at least two occasions Biddle refers to Peikoff's condemnation of McCaskey as "nonobjective." How "nonobjective" differs from "subjective" (in the pejorative Randian sense) I cannot say. Perhaps "nonobjective," like purgatory, is a temporary stop between heaven and hell, but I suspect that Biddle was simply unwilling to go so far as to use the dreaded S-word in regard to Peikoff.

What, Me Nonobjective?

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

George,

In broader Randian terminology, "nonobjective" and "subjective" mean exactly the same thing. The narrower sense of "subjective," when it is opposed to both "objective" and "intrinsic," isn't in play here.

I think Craig Biddle knew what he was doing when he called Leonard Peikoff "nonobjective."

Of course, none of this is a recent development, where Peikoff is concerned. I've maintained for some time that an accurate one-sentence summary of "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand" would read, "When it comes to Ayn Rand—I'm nonobjective, and I'm proud!"

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Does anyone here know who actually owns The Objective Standard?

I had thought, naively, that TOS was owned by the Ayn Rand Institute and Craig Biddle, as an ARI employee, was doing part of his job by editing it.

The manner in which the journal was introduced and advertised made it look like an ARI house publication. And Robert Tracinski's long article on Peikoff vs. McCaskey strongly implied that ARI insiders started TOS to replace the no longer "reliable" Intellectual Activist with a periodical that would feature Peikoff-approved takes on politics and foreign policy presented by ARI-paid writers.

But if Craig Biddle were an ARI employee, he wouldn't be able to take his boss, Yaron Brook, off the TOS masthead without the boss's prior approval.

And if his performance displeased his boss as much as Biddle's apparently now has, he would be fired and ARI's top management would already be announcing his replacement. Instead, they are pulling the plug on his public speeches, though they have yet to erase him and his set topics from their roster.

So is TOS like The Intellectual Activist? My understanding is that even during those years when Peter Schwartz ran TIA the newsletter was never part of ARI and Schwartz was not paid by ARI to edit it. Hence, when Tracinski began to take TIA in unapproved directions, ARI management couldn't fire and replace him or shut the publication down.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

I think Craig Biddle knew what he was doing when he called Leonard Peikoff "nonobjective."

Rather than non-objective or subjective, a better designation comes from administrative law: Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. If he wanted it to sting, that’s what he should have used. To do even better one must mine the terminology of Orwell: We’re witnessing the unpersoning process in action. It’s the Richard Sanford story all over again. For those not familiar, he was booted after refusing to toe the line on the Reisman expulsion, and asking for evidence. See the documentation.

[PDS]

I think Craig Biddle knew what he was doing when he called Leonard Peikoff "nonobjective."

Rather than non-objective or subjective, a better designation comes from administrative law: Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. If he wanted it to sting, that’s what he should have used. To do even better one must mine the terminology of Orwell: We’re witnessing the unpersoning process in action. It’s the Richard Sanford story all over again. For those not familiar, he was booted after refusing to toe the line on the Reisman expulsion, and asking for evidence. See the documentation.

I just reviewed some of these materials re: Sanford. What a shame. What a clown-fest. All in the name of a philosophy based on reason.

I came very close, back in my mid-80's Glory Days, to choosing a career path of becoming an Objectivist academic, when the waft of a potential Kelley/Peikoff split was in the air. I ended up enjoying being a lawyer far too much, and dodged that bullet. As Garth Brooks says, "sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers..."

[George H. Smith]

I just reviewed some of these materials re: Sanford. What a shame. What a clown-fest. All in the name of a philosophy based on reason.

Indeed. Whenever I read this kind of stuff I feel as if I have entered a weird alternate universe.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

Rather than non-objective or subjective, a better designation comes from administrative law: Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. If he wanted it to sting, that's what he should have used.

ND,

You're quite right.

But "arbitrary" is a worse pejorative than "nonobjective," in the Peikovian lexicon.

If Biddle were to call any of Peikoff's claims "arbitrary," he would be relegating his teacher and guide to the lowest rung of hell.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Shayne,

If people are going to start criticizing Peikoff, I don't think it's too much for them to criticize the published editions of Rand's papers and lectures. And they don't have to mention Peikoff.

-Neil Parille

[Starbuckle]

I just noticed this post from MSK:

"Starbuckle,

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

When did I attempt to "intimidate" you?

[kiaer.ts]

Does anyone here know who actually owns The Objective Standard?

Any publication that gets reduced postal rates is required to print an annual statement of ownership and officers - which The Objectivist itself did back in the day. I can't tell you in which issue to look, since I have only ever read one issue of the Standard, and didn't look for the statement.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Re the gradual cracks in the fundy structure on Peikoff's antics, has anyone else had the thought that money talks and BS walks?

That seems to be true even here in O-Land.

When is a sellout not a sellout? That is the question.

Or to quote PJ O'Rourke, "When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming an asshole?"

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When did I attempt to "intimidate" you?

Starbuckle,

It's no longer worth talking about.

We're cool. Just let it die a well-deserved death.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

This dustup is interesting because it's the first that will be aired, so to speak, on the internet. People will be asking a lot of questions. If they don't get good answers I think many will stop supporting the ARI.

-Neil Parille

[Xray]

Xray claims: "I was merely putting Rand's premises to the test and pointed out the surprising result. Much of what Rand wrote in ITOE, she did not think through enough."

No, much of the misinterpretation of Rand is the unsurprising result of misreading of a very carefully written work. Rand recognized the possibilty of concepts of the imagination and false or badly formulated concepts. You ignore her whole discussion of how valid concepts are formed and then say "See? According to her there must be nonexistent mythological creatures."

You are missing the point. I merely demonstrated what one gets when drawing a conclusion from Rand's own premises.

If one 'ought not' to to get an 'invalid concept' or an 'invalid proposition' as a result - then there must be some mistake in the premises themselves.

Here is the complete demonstration. Please feel free to point out where you can see a mistake and explain why you think it is a mistake: (bolding mine)

Rand, ITOE, p. 10: "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e. that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." (Rand)

Now let's look at her definition of "concrete":

"Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists — and that which exists is concrete." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico..._concretes.html

"To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)" (Rand)

Okay then:

Premise 1: Every word is a symbol that stands for an unlimited number of concretes.

Premise 2: A concrete is that which exists.

Conclusion: From these premises it follows that the word "angel" is a symbol referring to an unlimited number of concretes, and a concrete is that which exists.

Ergo: angels, elves, gremlins, ghosts exist.

Your turn.

IOE is not a loosely written text but it is very condensed.

ITOE is anything but loosely written.

I was not saying ITOE is not condensed. For example, it contains some pretty 'condensed' attacks on Descartes, Hume and Kant (whom Rand considered as "the most evil man in mankind's history").

Condensedness as such does not indicate quality, nor does "loosely written" indicate minor quality. Loosely written texts can be brilliant, and when I think of the content of the Catholic catechism I had to study in school, 'condensed nonsense' comes pretty close.

As for ITOE (a collection of articles Rand wrote on the subject), it contains many contradictions of which the one I demonstrated above is an example.

See Rand's elaboration of her views in the transcript of a colloquium conducted about IOE that was appended to later editions of the book.

These Q&A sessions between deferential students and their teacher is quite interesting in terms of the group dyamic. How eager they were to demonstrate to Rand that they had understood her! So eager in fact that I got the feeling many of them even did Rand's job by addressing possible problems, then answering their own questions, and often all Rand had to answer was "That's correct". I sometimes asked myself whether Rand would have been able to produce the ideas some of them had ...

Since it was no discussion between peers, but between students of Objectivism and their admired teacher, a real challenge of Rand's ideas did not occur anywhere in those Q&A sessions.

It would be difficult to find a contemporary work on philosophy that covers so much ground so succinctly. It's a shame that Rand didn't write similar tracts on other areas of philosophy, such as metaethics.

What's so new in ITOE? Her "theory of concepts" is mostly about something as simple as forming lexical classes and subclasses. The technical terms in linguistics are hypernyms (sometimes also called hyperonynms) and hyponyms.

Example: "Dog" is the hyponym of the hypernym "mammal"

"Mammal" in turn is the hyponym of the hypernym "animal".

Every hyponym is a hypernym, (but not vice versa). For example, the class of dogs is contained in the class of mammals, but not every mammal is a dog.

Every member of class h (hyponyms) is contained in class H (Hypernyms).

That's all there is to it. Imo what Rand tried in vain was to transfer a simple pattern of abstraction [focusing only on one section of linguistics (lexical semantics)] to the complexity of existence itself. Here's the rub.

While lexically categorizing the world is necessary for us, how we categorize it is another story.

Example: in the Western world, we don't even have a lexical equivalent for the Chinese term "qi" because it does not figure in our idea of reality. Trying to translate it witb 'energy flow' or 'élan vital' does not nearly cover it.

I personally have doubts that this "qi" even exists, but every doctor practising Traditional Chinese Medicine would tell me that I would not exist if I did not have it.

So what is the "qi"? A "valid" concept? An "invalid" concept? Who determines its validity?

Another example: Is Steven Hawking's idea of the multiverse an "invalid" concept? From prior discussions, I got the impression that Objectivists might be disturbed by his theory and I ask myself why that is. Suppose it should turn out that Hawking is right - where is the problem?

Edited October 31, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

It's mostly a waste of time to identify Xray's fallacies. She repeats them over and over anyway. See here, here, and here.

Now let's look at her definition of "concrete":

"Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists — and that which exists is concrete." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico..._concretes.html

"To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)" (Rand)

Okay then:

Premise 1: Every word is a symbol that stands for an unlimited number of concretes.

Premise 2: A concrete is that which exists.

Conclusion: From these premises it follows that the word "angel" is a symbol referring to an unlimited number of concretes, and a concrete is that which exists.

Ergo: angels, elves, gremlins, ghosts exist.

Your turn.

Firstly, Ayn Rand did not define concrete. Regardless, Xray has not yet learned that the soundness of a syllogism depends on the major and minor terms having the exact same meanings throughout. Here she equivocates with both "concrete" and "exists", so Xray's fallacy is obvious. The word Nazi strikes again.

Xray, is the following syllogism sound? If not, why not?

Premise 1: Whiskey is a spirit.

Premise 2: A spirit is a supernatural being.

Therefore, whiskey is a supernatural being.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

Biddle lectures canceled by ARI.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/craig-biddles-lectures-canceled-by-ari.html

[Xray]

Now let's look at her definition of "concrete":

"Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists — and that which exists is concrete." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico..._concretes.html

"To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units)" (Rand)

Okay then:

Premise 1: Every word is a symbol that stands for an unlimited number of concretes.

Premise 2: A concrete is that which exists.

Conclusion: From these premises it follows that the word "angel" is a symbol referring to an unlimited number of concretes, and a concrete is that which exists.

Ergo: angels, elves, gremlins, ghosts exist.

Your turn.

Firstly, Ayn Rand did not define concrete.

Irrelevant in that context, since what Rand said about "concrete" suffices to get the picture.

She stated: "that which exists is concrete", and that "every word we use stands for an unlimited number of concretes".

So per Rand, a concrete has to be something which exists. Correct? If you think it isn't, please provide an example of a concrete which does not exist.

Regardless, Xray has not yet learned that the soundness of a syllogism depends on the major and minor terms having the exact same meanings throughout. Here she equivocates with both "concrete" and "exists", so Xray's fallacy is obvious. The word Nazi strikes again.

Xray, is the following syllogism sound? If not, why not?

Premise 1: Whiskey is a spirit.

Premise 2: A spirit is a supernatural being.

Therefore, whiskey is a supernatural being.

This is an excellent demonstration of Rand's errors in reasoning. Thanks for providing it.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Xray