New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Robert Campbell]

I wonder how seriously anyone can take The Logical Leap after seeing its author produce another "reply to critics":

Of course, people also knew that a cannonball falls faster than a straw hat. One must appreciate the effects of air resistance in order to reach Galileo’s broad principle that all bodies accelerate at the same rate in free fall (“free” means “in the absence of friction”). I emphasized this point in my book, but I did so without citing the specific observations that contributed to Galileo’s appreciation of friction (for example, the experiments in which he dropped bodies through fluids). Strangely, this has led some of my critics to charge me with “historical inaccuracy.” In fact, it is simply one example of how I condensed and essentialized the material. I wanted to keep the emphasis on what is revolutionary about Galileo’s physics—and that is his brilliant quantitative experiments that led to mathematical laws.

I hope Harriman keeps up with these "replies." Perhaps he is taking lessons from Jim Valliant.

Robert Campbell

[Starbuckle]

WS writes: "How sad for Objectivism that challengers are deposed rather than debated."

Apt summary not only of the current episode but also of the much longer history.

[Brant Gaede]

The Hsiehs have just published their 'closing thoughts' on The Kerfuffle. It is a marvel of balance-beam gymnastics.

"Now that ARI has explained recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful."

Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

So, what are the answers to the "important but unanswered questions" that the Hsiehs had here?

It appears that the answers are as follows:

What criticisms by McCaskey did Peikoff find unacceptable -- and why?

This is a private matter. Your questions are intrusive and inapproptiate. Mind your own business.

Does Peikoff regard his theory of induction as part of Objectivism -- and, if so, why?

Whether or not Peikoff's theory of induction is a "part of Objectivism" is a private matter and a secret among those of us who have been properly assimilated to think exactly the same thoughts and to support the same positions. You are irrelevant. You will be eliminated.

Do the members of ARI's Board think that Peikoff's e-mail was appropriate in its claims and demands?

We are not the "ARI Board." We are the ARI Borg. Peikoff's thoughts are our thoughts. We are one.

Did Peikoff offer them more detail about his objections to McCaskey's criticisms in prior communications?

McCaskey was not of the body. He has been eliminated.

Why did Peikoff morally condemn McCaskey, as opposed to merely thinking him mistaken? Why didn't Peikoff seek out McCaskey for a discussion of these matters?

Do we have to remind you of who Peikoff is? You will be assimilated.

What is Peikoff's relationship to ARI's Board?

Peikoff and ARI Borg are one and the same. We are him. He is us.

What would it mean for him to "go"? Might Peikoff (or his heirs) issue similar ultimatums in the future? If so, what will the ARI Board do, if it disagrees with the demand?

Peikoff cannot "go." We are Peikoff.

What does ARI regard as the limits of acceptable disagreement -- including the public or private expression thereof -- for people associated with the Institute in various capacities (e.g., as Board members, employees, OAC students, grant recipients, OCON speakers, campus club speakers, etc.)? What is Anthem's view of those limits?

Your questions are futile. You will be absorbed.

What else has happened here that we don't yet know but that might affect our judgments?

Your judgments are irrelevant. You will be made to share our "judgments." Like us, you will become ARI Borg. You will become Peikoff.

J

You are the cat's ass, J.

--Brant

I meant, meow

[Brant Gaede]

The Hsiehs have just published their 'closing thoughts' on The Kerfuffle. It is a marvel of balance-beam gymnastics.

"Now that ARI has explained recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful."

Yes, back to toeing the line, suitably chastened. Everyone shut up, thank you.

Talk about beating about the bush. She never gave the Brandens a quarter of an inch but essentially gives Peikoff infinity.

Juxtapose this crap into the context of The Fountainhead and see who looks like shit, them or Roark.

Did Ayn Rand ever fail to depose of such with more than a few words? Flush.

The only (minor) point of interest is that the Hseihs have dumped Peikoff, so they might think, but not the ARI. This will most likely be the implicit position of the ARI going forward until Peikoff dies. What they don't realize or understand is that there won't be anything left to speak of. Ayn Rand was never about moral equivocation or gobbledygook. More to the point, you can't dump Peikoff out of the commonly embraced context. They are all under his thumb still, just as he is still under Rand's thumb. Watch Brook follow the money out the door.

--Brant

Edited November 21, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

WSS hits the marks as always. I knew there was sumthin' 'bout that boy.

New inductee for the ARI BOD:

[9thdoctor]

I note that a post eerily similar to Starbuckle's "bullshit" note appeared in a thread of open commentary at Noodlefood.

It lasted some 30 minutes before Lady Banhammer noticed.

I didn’t see it before, but I gather that it’s back, and has been there for 3 hours. I imagine that Comrade Sonia is indulging in the sleep of Muchukunda from her lair, and that DarienMiguelis will experience the wrath soon enough.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9169&view=findpost&p=114822 vs.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/11/open-thread-217.html

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

It's vanished again.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

You write:

I hope Harriman keeps up with these "replies." Perhaps he is taking lessons from Jim Valliant.

How long is it until Harriman asks "have you read The Logical Leap" and "why don't you focus on the point on my book"?

-Neil Parille

Edited November 21, 2010 by Neil Parille

[BaalChatzaf]

Robert,

You write:

I hope Harriman keeps up with these "replies." Perhaps he is taking lessons from Jim Valliant.

How long is it until Harriman asks "have you read The Logical Leap" and "why don't you focus on the point on my book"?

-Neil Parille

That is good salesmanship. It will get people to buy the book. I am waiting until I can get the book for $0.01 at Amazon.Com. When the book gets inexpensive enough for me to buy it or when I can borrow it from the library I will do a page by page, line by line analysis of the book and I will make no references to any of the dramatis personae of the Objectivist Movement. I think the book should be reviewed in and of itself for correctness and coherence.

Question to anyone who can answer it: Has Harriman done any original work in physics?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Question to anyone who can answer it: Has Harriman done any original work in physics?

Whether or not Harriman has done any original work in physics is a private matter and a secret, and therefore your inquiry is inappropriate. We suggest that you try to remain patient and calm, and continue to recognize the importance of promoting Ayn Rand's ideas.

J

Edited November 21, 2010 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Robert,

You write:

I hope Harriman keeps up with these "replies." Perhaps he is taking lessons from Jim Valliant.

How long is it until Harriman asks "have you read The Logical Leap" and "why don't you focus on the point on my book"?

-Neil Parille

That is good salesmanship. It will get people to buy the book.

As is using Wikipedia as a free promotional tool. Someone should clue Harriman in on how to insert references to his own work into Wikipedia articles.

J

[9thdoctor]

Question to anyone who can answer it: Has Harriman done any original work in physics?

I believe in the Q&A following his lecture on why Kant is the author of the modern destruction of physics he said that he didn't get a doctorate because he couldn't tolerate the epistemology taught in grad school. It was available for streaming online, I've linked to it before but don't find it now. His two most notable critics, Norsen and McCaskey, seem to have managed to get doctorates, however.

I hesitate to get vulgar here (I'm going to do it anyway), but I hear that he has achieved breakthroughs in the study of peristaltic waves, particularly how they are affected by proximity of a proboscis. However, the experiment needs to be replicated before the "green light to induction" will shine, and finding a sample of assholes with the same characteristics as the original subject is surely an insurmountable challenge.

[merjet]

http://www.thelogicalleap.com/archives/114

This is really poor.

He skipped the part where Galileo considered rates of fall in different media, like it had nothing do with quantifying what happens?

He hides behind Stillman Drake rather than see what Galileo himself wrote?

What Galileo himself wrote about rates of falling in different media is here, pages 66-73. Pages 72 and 73 especially pertain to free fall.

[BaalChatzaf]

I hesitate to get vulgar here (I'm going to do it anyway), but I hear that he has achieved breakthroughs in the study of peristaltic waves, particularly how they are affected by proximity of a proboscis. However, the experiment needs to be replicated before the "green light to induction" will shine, and finding a sample of assholes with the same characteristics as the original subject is surely an insurmountable challenge.

No shit!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Question to anyone who can answer it: Has Harriman done any original work in physics?

I believe in the Q&A following his lecture on why Kant is the author of the modern destruction of physics he said that he didn't get a doctorate because he couldn't tolerate the epistemology taught in grad school. It was available for streaming online, I've linked to it before but don't find it now. His two most notable critics, Norsen and McCaskey, seem to have managed to get doctorates, however.

I can see how a philosophy student might bemoan this, but it's hard to understand how a physics student could justifiably quit on those grounds. This makes it sound like Harriman is a weak-minded zealot and always has been.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

WS writes: "How sad for Objectivism that challengers are deposed rather than debated."

Apt summary not only of the current episode but also of the much longer history.

Diana Hsieh is now dealing with her own dethronement, and the demarcation of her own quasi-independent duchy, silently.

My mirror neurons are perhaps overactive at the moment, but I feel empathy for the former princess. She may very well be facing a time of intense emotion, intense to the degree that she feels torn in her allegiance. She may even be feeling the emotions of a defector.

Cult-busting social psychologist Margaret Singer had some striking advice* for former members of groups. Only a few may actually pertain to the former princess, but those few that do are particularly poignant or/and hilarious to consider.

I have taken extreme liberties with the original text of Dr Singer, replacing 'cult' with 'ARI' for the extra bathos.

Post-ARI After Effects

After exiting ARI, an individual may experience a period of intense and often conflicting emotions. She or he may feel relief to be out of the group, but also may feel grief over the loss of positive elements in ARI, such as friendships, a sense of belonging or the feeling of personal worth generated by the group’s stated ideals or mission. The emotional upheaval of the period is often characterized by "post-ARI trauma syndrome":

[ . . . ]

The period of exiting from ARI is usually a traumatic experience and, like any great change in a person’s life, involves passing through stages of accommodation to the change:

Disbelief/denial: "This can’t be happening. It couldn’t have been that bad."

Anger/hostility: "How could they/I be so wrong?" (hate feelings)

Self-pity/depression: "Why me? I can’t do this."

Fear/bargaining: "I don’t know if I can live without my group. Maybe I can still associate with it on a limited basis, if I do what they want."

Reassessment: "Maybe I was wrong about the group’s being so wonderful."

Accommodation/acceptance: "I can move beyond this experience and choose new directions for my life" or...

Reinvolvement: "I think I will rejoin the group."

Passing through these stages is seldom a smooth progression. It is fairly typical to bounce back and forth between different stages. Not everyone achieves the stage of accommodation / acceptance. Some return to ARI life. But for those who do not, the following may be experienced for a period of several months:

flashbacks to ARI life

simplistic black-white thinking

sense of unreality

suggestibility, ie. automatic obedience responses to trigger-terms of ARI’s loaded language or to innocent suggestions

disassociation (spacing out)

feeling "out of it"

"Stockholm Syndrome": knee-jerk impulses to defend ARI when it is criticized, even if ARI hurt the person

difficulty concentrating

incapacity to make decisions

hostility reactions, either toward anyone who criticizes ARI or toward ARI itself

mental confusion

low self-esteem

dread of running into a current ARI-member by mistake

loss of a sense of how to carry out simple tasks

dread of being cursed or condemned by ARI

hang-overs of habitual ARI behaviors like chanting

difficulty managing time

trouble holding down a job

Most of these symptoms subside as the victim mainstreams into everyday routines of normal life. In a small number of cases, the symptoms continue.

* This information is a composite list from the following sources: "Coming Out of Cults", by Margaret Thaler Singer, Psychology Today, Jan. 1979, P. 75; "Destructive Cults, Mind Control and Psychological Coercion", Positive Action Portland, Oregon, and "Fact Sheet", Cult Hot-Line and Clinic, New York City.

The url of the original is

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studyrecovery/study_trauma.htm

Edited November 21, 2010 by william.scherk

[Robert Campbell]

I can see how a philosophy student might bemoan this, but it's hard to understand how a physics student could justifiably quit on those grounds. This makes it sound like Harriman is a weak-minded zealot and always has been.

How much time, in fact, does a grad student in a typical physics program spend on anything resembling epistemology?

Hell, I didn't care for some of the psychology that I was taught in grad school.

So what?

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I can see how a philosophy student might bemoan this, but it's hard to understand how a physics student could justifiably quit on those grounds. This makes it sound like Harriman is a weak-minded zealot and always has been.

How much time, in fact, does a grad student in a typical physics program spend on anything resembling epistemology?

Hell, I didn't care for some of the psychology that I was taught in grad school.

So what?

Robert Campbell

Not a lot. I just googled the local physics graduate offerings and it's pretty typical: http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/graduate/grad-courses.html

Jim

[sjw]

Not a lot. I just googled the local physics graduate offerings and it's pretty typical: http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/graduate/grad-courses.html

Jim

There's probably bad epistemology behind some of those subjects, but that'd be part of the point of taking them if you disagreed -- you'd have the opportunity to learn the facts and put your own epistemological spin on them if you thought you had a better way.

I'm going with weak-minded zealot who learned how to kiss Peikoff's feet.

Shayne

Edited November 22, 2010 by sjw

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

Nope, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of epistemology in that coursework.

Robert Campbell

PS. How long have you been living in North Carolina?

[9thdoctor]

I believe in the Q&A following his lecture on why Kant is the author of the modern destruction of physics he said that he didn't get a doctorate because he couldn't tolerate the epistemology taught in grad school.

I just went to the trouble of looking it up and transcribing what he said, for accuracy's sake:

...in general, my area was theoretical particle physics. I got disillusioned in graduate school after going through the whole, uh, PhD qualifying process and so on, and uh, it was time for me write my dissertation, I’d completed all my course work, and I looked around at what theoretical particle physicists were doing, and they were just creating mathematical formulisms and any time you ask physical questions they, um, told you well that’s metaphysics we don’t talk about that. Um, so, ah, I ended up dropping out, and targeting nuclear bombs instead, for a while.

So I didn't recall it exactly right, though I was in the ballpark. The last part sounds like Bob K talking.

No shit!

I’m afraid that’s an oversimplified reading of the upcoming Theory of Alimentary Waves.

[BaalChatzaf]

...in general, my area was theoretical particle physics. I got disillusioned in graduate school after going through the whole, uh, PhD qualifying process and so on, and uh, it was time for me write my dissertation, I'd completed all my course work, and I looked around at what theoretical particle physicists were doing, and they were just creating mathematical formulisms and any time you ask physical questions they, um, told you well that's metaphysics we don't talk about that. Um, so, ah, I ended up dropping out, and targeting nuclear bombs instead, for a while.

Harriman was pissing and bemoaning the construction of the very, very best physical theory ever constructed -- The Standard Model of Particles and Fields which predicts to an accuracy of twelve decimal places following the decimal point. This is mindless corrupt physics at its best. It keeps on producing the correct answers for all forces except gravitation which it was never designed to handle.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

Nope, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of epistemology in that coursework.

Robert Campbell

PS. How long have you been living in North Carolina?

A little over 2 months. I'm liking it a lot so far.

Jim

[Starbuckle]

BC wrote: "...the Standard Model of Particles and Fields which predicts to an accuracy of twelve decimal places following the decimal point."

1) What makes it the "best" physical model ever?

2) How does one determine whether the prediction was accurate?

3) Are you sure that you and Harriman are referring to the exact same theoretical claims?

Edited November 22, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Starbuckle]

The Hsiehs: "Now that ARI has explained [sic] recent events and its future policies, we do not regard further debate on those matters as fruitful."

John Stuart Mill: "[T]he opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible.... To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.

"Unfortunately for the good sense of mankind, the fact of their fallibility is far from carrying the weight in their practical judgment, which is always allowed to it in theory; for while every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion of which they feel very certain, may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable."