New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[George H. Smith]

Generally speaking when the word "essentials" is used by the ARI self serving distortions of fact, otherwise called 'lies', follow. Though I have not read TLL it seems like the same process is at work given the McCaskey issue.

Scoundrels, and even moral degenerates, can write good books.

Ghs

[sjw]

Generally speaking when the word "essentials" is used by the ARI self serving distortions of fact, otherwise called 'lies', follow. Though I have not read TLL it seems like the same process is at work given the McCaskey issue.

Scoundrels, and even moral degenerates, can write good books.

Ghs

Are you speaking from experience? ;)

Shayne

[sjw]

I cannot reconcile what you say in the first paragraph with what you say in the second. You begin by denying that you are accusing Harriman of lying in Logical Leap, but you go on to accuse him of "systematic dishonesty." And judging from the context (i.e., your comment about essentializing and my "over the top" remark) this latter charge also refers to Logical Leap.

So which is it?

Ghs

Yes I think LL is intellectually dishonest. The manner in which DH deals with critics is good evidence, and I think the book itself is (but I don't criticize someone who disagrees). No I do not know whether he outright lied. The systematic dishonesty pertains to the method of ARI, of which DH has played a part. The whole ARI institution should be flushed down the toilet precisely because it is systematically dishonest.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Generally speaking when the word "essentials" is used by the ARI self serving distortions of fact, otherwise called 'lies', follow. Though I have not read TLL it seems like the same process is at work given the McCaskey issue.

Scoundrels, and even moral degenerates, can write good books.

Ghs

Ah! The M. de Sade!?

--Brant

please, I couldn't resist

[kiaer.ts]

Herbert Spencer once remarked that the primary purpose of many reviewers is to show how much more clever they are than the author.

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/product-reviews/0451230051/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar

[anthony]

It is important to keep in mind a recurring theme in Logical Leap, namely, that science, including physics, should be concerned with describing physical reality in terms of causal relationships. While not denying the practical value of mathematical formalisms, Harriman argues that physicists should seek a deeper level of understanding. His discussion of Ptolemy is significant in this context. In accord with standard histories of astronomy (e.g., those by Kuhn and Toulmin), Harriman criticizes Ptolemaic astronomy for its construction of mathematical and geometrical fictions that were designed to "save the appearances" by generating accurate predictions, while exhibiting little or no concern for the underlying physical reality.

Ghs

George,

Is it your opinion that science has become disconnected fron reality (specifically, Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology)?

If so, how much should the physicists take responsibility, and why?

Has Harriman made an honest attempt at establishing the 'connect'?

If so, how much has he succeeded?

Excuse me if you've addressed most of this already, but I'm asking you because you alone (it seems) have some positive criticisms of the book, notwithstanding the furore it started.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

It is important to keep in mind a recurring theme in Logical Leap, namely, that science, including physics, should be concerned with describing physical reality in terms of causal relationships. While not denying the practical value of mathematical formalisms, Harriman argues that physicists should seek a deeper level of understanding. His discussion of Ptolemy is significant in this context. In accord with standard histories of astronomy (e.g., those by Kuhn and Toulmin), Harriman criticizes Ptolemaic astronomy for its construction of mathematical and geometrical fictions that were designed to "save the appearances" by generating accurate predictions, while exhibiting little or no concern for the underlying physical reality.

The Large Hadron Collider is a ten billion dollar exercise in "concern for the underlying physical reality". See where the physicists have put the money and you know where their mouth is. As to "saving the appearances" the appearances (i.e. the phenomena) is really all we have. All physical observation of the very large, the very far, the very small, the very fast and the very energetic is by way of phenomena indirectly observed. To get to the "underlying physical reality" we have to drill down to Planck Length and Planck Time. Fifteen Orders of Magnitude to go and counting. And if (not likely) we get there we have no assurance that we have gone far enough. All we will have even at that small a scale is the phenomena.

The only first hand knowledge we have is direct immediate perception within the capabilities of human senses. Everything else is indirect and inferential. And all of our inferential material is theory laden as well out our direct perceptioln. Example: measuring a bookshelf with a yardstick or a tape measure is predicated on sufficient rigidity or sufficient inextensibility of the measuring instruments. And to verify that we rely on a theory of the mechanics of the material out of which the measuring stick is made. But how to we verify such theories. With measuring sticks. When we pick up a ruler Here to bring it There to make a measurement we presume the motion of the carry does not distort the measuring stick. How do we verify that we are not distorting. With another measuring stick (perhaps of a different type, such as a laser beam) whose nature is predicated on verification using measuring sticks. In effect, we are limited by a coherence notion of factual truth, not a correspondence notion.

All we can do in the long run is to build up coherent patterns of explanation which are mostly inferential. But that is not bad. It is good enough to get us computers that work, planes that fly and GPS systems that can locate us within ten feet of where we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

It is important to keep in mind a recurring theme in Logical Leap, namely, that science, including physics, should be concerned with describing physical reality in terms of causal relationships. While not denying the practical value of mathematical formalisms, Harriman argues that physicists should seek a deeper level of understanding. His discussion of Ptolemy is significant in this context. In accord with standard histories of astronomy (e.g., those by Kuhn and Toulmin), Harriman criticizes Ptolemaic astronomy for its construction of mathematical and geometrical fictions that were designed to "save the appearances" by generating accurate predictions, while exhibiting little or no concern for the underlying physical reality.

The Large Hadron Collider is a ten billion dollar exercise in "concern for the underlying physical reality". See where the physicists have put the money and you know where their mouth is. As to "saving the appearances" the appearances (i.e. the phenomena) is really all we have. All physical observation of the very large, the very far, the very small, the very fast and the very energetic is by way of phenomena indirectly observed. To get to the "underlying physical reality" we have to drill down to Planck Length and Planck Time. Fifteen Orders of Magnitude to go and counting. And if (not likely) we get there we have no assurance that we have gone far enough. All we will have even at that small a scale is the phenomena.

The only first hand knowledge we have is direct immediate perception within the capabilities of human senses. Everything else is indirect and inferential. And all of our inferential material is theory laden as well out our direct perceptioln. Example: measuring a bookshelf with a yardstick or a tape measure is predicated on sufficient rigidity or sufficient inextensibility of the measuring instruments. And to verify that we rely on a theory of the mechanics of the material out of which the measuring stick is made. But how to we verify such theories. With measuring sticks. When we pick up a ruler Here to bring it There to make a measurement we presume the motion of the carry does not distort the measuring stick. How do we verify that we are not distorting. With another measuring stick (perhaps of a different type, such as a laser beam) whose nature is predicated on verification using measuring sticks. In effect, we are limited by a coherence notion of factual truth, not a correspondence notion.

All we can do in the long run is to build up coherent patterns of explanation which are mostly inferential. But that is not bad. It is good enough to get us computers that work, planes that fly and GPS systems that can locate us within ten feet of where we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Harriman doesn't need you to tell him that subatomic phenomena cannot be directed perceived.

Have you ever considered reading Harriman's book before criticizing it? That is standard operating procedure in most circles.

As for building up "coherent patterns of explanation," Harriman would agree with this. His objection is that the standard metaphysical interpretations of QM are, in the final analysis, incoherent.

Harriman would also agree that our inferences are "theory laden," in the sense that they depend on a particular method of inference. Moreover, he maintains that such methods presuppose certain philosophical principles. This is why he defends induction, after all, and why he correctly argues that induction presupposes causation. Many of Harriman's historical discussions focus on cases where induction was correctly applied, and chapter 6 ("Causes of Error") presents historical examples of the incorrect use of induction.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

Is it your opinion that science has become disconnected fron reality (specifically, Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology)?

If so, how much should the physicists take responsibility, and why?

Has Harriman made an honest attempt at establishing the 'connect'?

If so, how much has he succeeded?

Excuse me if you've addressed most of this already, but I'm asking you because you alone (it seems) have some positive criticisms of the book, notwithstanding the furore it started.

Tony

I previously posted a lot on the philosophy of science and its application to physics, and I don't want to cover the same ground again. Suffice it to say that although I agree with many of Harriman's points, my focus has been somewhat different. Here, for example, is what I wrote on 29 July:

It is not my intention to denigrate physics; far from it. My problem is with those physicists, or those people who claim to know something about physics, who draw unwarranted conclusions -- many of them philosophical -- from the findings of physics.

My point about high priests had nothing to do with secrets. Rather, I simply wished to emphasize what I have stated before, viz., that when physicists leave their area of expertise, they are bound by the same canons of intelligibility that apply to everyone else. A physicist, however brilliant, does not have a special epistemological warrant to speak nonsense and then, when a layperson points out that he is speaking nonsense, flash his scientific credentials, while claiming that nonspecialists cannot understand the profundity of his statements.

Does Harriman make an "honest attempt" to connect physics to reality? Yes, I think he does, though I don't think the connection that he, via Peikoff, makes between induction and Rand's theory of concept formation is essential to his effort, or even especially helpful.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Have you ever considered reading Harriman's book before criticizing it? That is standard operating procedure in most circles.

When the price falls below $1.00 or when I can borrow it from the local library. Then I will go over the book with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and I will analyze and criticize -as it is, as it is written, verbetim- in my best literal minded Aspie fashion. I will not concern myself with the internecine struggles in the Objectivist Movement (which I consider jejune, trivial and hardly worth my time). I plan to treat the book justly and objectively (sic!) and I will not be inclined to make any allowance for errors. I will be as hard as granite and just as ungiving. If you think Ayn Rand was bad-ass, you haven't met me on one of my cranky days.

From what little I have read about Harriman, I do not expect much talent in physics. Maybe, he has something useful to say about induction and experimentation in a more general context than physics. I have already had a one on one with L.P. concerning mathematics and mathematical logic. I think he is an ignoramus and a bigot based on that encounter. I would not give the time of day to L.P.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Herbert Spencer once remarked that the primary purpose of many reviewers is to show how much more clever they are than the author.

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/product-reviews/0451230051/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar

I guess I better learn to write like a fawning sycophant in order not to have some nitwit who prefers appearance to substance pin a Herbert Spencer quote on me. This yahoo seems to have it down:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UCPF4APPU3M/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2UCPF4APPU3M

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Some of the criticisms of Harriman on this thread strike me as over the top. This includes some of the criticisms that have been leveled against his book. All historical accounts, including histories of science, include statements that some historians find objectionable. And these include not only interpretations but matters of hard fact as well. All histories are written from certain theoretical perspectives, and a given perspective will determine which facts a given historian views as relevant. Anyone who believes that there is one "standard" account of the history of science hasn't read much if anything in the field.

George,

I don't believe that there is one standard account of every line of development in the history of science. Not even of the emergence of modern physics in the work of Galileo and Newton.

I do expect any competent historian of science to be aware that accounts vary and to be able, when necessary, to compare his or her account with others and explain why his or her rendition might be better.

Harriman wrote a "popular" book, one intended for a general audience, and one typically doesn't find a comparative analysis (i.e., a review of the latest scholarly work) in such books. Consider, for example, Herbert Butterfield's justly celebrated book, The Origins of Modern Science (rev. ed., 1957). Butterfield (who was a conventional historian, not a scientist) defends a number of theses that were quite unconventional at the time he was writing, yet he never reviews the contemporary literature, nor does he even footnote his sources, despite his many quotations from original sources. The same lack of concern with competing interpretations is found in other popular accounts, such as Stephen F. Mason's A History of the Sciences (1967) -- a book that runs over 600 pages. It is not realistic to expect a popular account to deal with the same issues that one would expect to find in a specialized study.

I really wonder whether Harriman is able to contrast his account of, say, Galileo's thinking on key issues in mechanics with other major accounts. He never seems to get very far before he starts turning the accounts into straw men and Satanizing their proponents.

I tend to agree with you on this point, at least in some instances. For example, I was annoyed by Harriman's treatment of Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel (An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method) on pp. 72-73 of Logical Leap. Harriman places their remarks in the worst possible light, whereas much of what they have to say could be cited in support of Harriman's defense of induction. The basic problem is that Cohen and Nagel speak of establishing a generalization as "true with a high probability" (a comment that Harriman fails to quote), whereas a Randian might speak of the same generalization as being "contextually certain." Harriman could have easily explained this difference in terminology, instead of claiming, incorrectly, that Cohen and Nagel wish to admit arbitrary hypotheses into science -- something they actually argue against.

Since I have commented on what I perceive as the negative bias of some OL commentators, it is appropriate that I speculate on my own bias. If I had been totally unfamiliar with Objectivism before reading Logical Leap, it probably would have annoyed me to no end, owing to problems of the sort you mention. But I expected to encounter these problems in a Peikovian-style book, so I tend to pass over them with a C'est la vie attitude. What I focus on instead is the possibility of extending some of Rand's insights about epistemology to fields other than philosophy, and I view Logical Leap as a first, if halting, step in that direction. Parts of the book are very promising in this respect, its flaws -- which are largely generic Peikovian flaws -- notwithstanding.

In short, I read Logical Leap in the same spirit that I have read many Thomistic philosophical works over the years: I focus on the valuable parts and skip over the theology.

Ghs

[dsaum]

It is important to keep in mind a recurring theme in Logical Leap, namely, that science, including physics, should be concerned with describing physical reality in terms of causal relationships. While not denying the practical value of mathematical formalisms, Harriman argues that physicists should seek a deeper level of understanding. His discussion of Ptolemy is significant in this context. In accord with standard histories of astronomy (e.g., those by Kuhn and Toulmin), Harriman criticizes Ptolemaic astronomy for its construction of mathematical and geometrical fictions that were designed to "save the appearances" by generating accurate predictions, while exhibiting little or no concern for the underlying physical reality.

The Large Hadron Collider is a ten billion dollar exercise in "concern for the underlying physical reality". See where the physicists have put the money and you know where their mouth is. As to "saving the appearances" the appearances (i.e. the phenomena) is really all we have. All physical observation of the very large, the very far, the very small, the very fast and the very energetic is by way of phenomena indirectly observed. To get to the "underlying physical reality" we have to drill down to Planck Length and Planck Time. Fifteen Orders of Magnitude to go and counting. And if (not likely) we get there we have no assurance that we have gone far enough. All we will have even at that small a scale is the phenomena.

The only first hand knowledge we have is direct immediate perception within the capabilities of human senses. Everything else is indirect and inferential. And all of our inferential material is theory laden as well out our direct perceptioln. Example: measuring a bookshelf with a yardstick or a tape measure is predicated on sufficient rigidity or sufficient inextensibility of the measuring instruments. And to verify that we rely on a theory of the mechanics of the material out of which the measuring stick is made. But how to we verify such theories. With measuring sticks. When we pick up a ruler Here to bring it There to make a measurement we presume the motion of the carry does not distort the measuring stick. How do we verify that we are not distorting. With another measuring stick (perhaps of a different type, such as a laser beam) whose nature is predicated on verification using measuring sticks. In effect, we are limited by a coherence notion of factual truth, not a correspondence notion.

All we can do in the long run is to build up coherent patterns of explanation which are mostly inferential. But that is not bad. It is good enough to get us computers that work, planes that fly and GPS systems that can locate us within ten feet of where we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There is an interesting logic to Harriman's hypothesis of the corruption of physics. Unfortunately his analysis is primarily available in audio form today. I have listened to a number of his lectures and I have found him to be a clear lecturer with a good grasp of physics and the history of physics. Here my attempt at "Harriman Physics 101" based on some rough quotes transcribed from Harriman's "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics" (TPCOP) 1998 audio lectures.

1. Harriman does not consider the myriad successes of physics as a refutation 0f his corruption hypothesis. So do not even try to refute him by listing them. His main claim is that we would be much better off if Kant had not derailed physics and caused physicists gave up trying to discover the causal basis of phenomena like relativity and QM:

"Why should you care whether physics today is irrational? How does it affect you?

I think it affects you in two ways. First, you know that physics is the foundation of technology. The discovery of fundamental truths in theoretical physics can have an enormous practical value. Such discoveries fueled the industrial revolution, which has made our lives twice as long and immeasurably more enjoyable. Irrationalities in physics will, in the long run, bring such progress to a halt and thereby adversely affect your life. Now, don’t ask me: if subatomic physics were rational, what life-promoting technology would come from it? I don’t know. But I do know that, in the long run, as physics goes, so goes technology. So, there’s a major value at stake here."

And do not ask him for any experimental evidence that supports his "corrupt physics" hypothesis. He argues that philosophy trumps physics, and philosophy does not require experiments.

2. What should physicists be doing according to Harriman?

In one of Harriman's Q/A he was asked what he thought about the new discoveries about the accelerating expansion of the universe. He replied that you should look at the primary data which consists of light from distant stars. He thinks that we do not have a satisfactory theory of light due to our lack of a causal understanding of QM and relativity, so we need to go back and correct these fields before we can even speculate on the topics like the expansion of the universe. So you can see that Harriman's view of what we should be doing in physics is rather limited. The rethinking of the causal basis of physics seems to be the highest priority activity of a Harriman physics.

One slight problem for Harriman's thesis is that Kant lived after Newton, so the presence of non causal action-at-a-distance in Newton's gravitational theory can not be blamed on Kant. Harriman's answer is that Newton said that he did not have any evidence for the causal basis of gravity, and that besides, he wrote a letter in which he said he considered action-at-a-distance to be nonsense. But after Kant, Harriman does not cut anyone any slack, so I guess he would not be satisfied if today's physicists followed Newton and said that "we did not know" the causal basis of relativity and QM. And Harriman never contemplates that nature may be constructed so that we can not have expeimental access to a causal basis for gravity, relativity and QM. Harriman does not spend much time contemplating alternative that would not fit in his tidy hypothesis of corruption based on Kant.

3. Polemics vs Objectivity

Unfortunately, Harriman's lectures lack even the pretense of objectivity. He is more interested in polemics, moralism, and name calling than a balanced argument based on facts. He begins TPCOP by calling those who disagree with his approach "hacks"

"Now, it’s true that many physicists today just use the equations without thinking about the fundamentals. But, that’s the attitude of a hack, not a serious scientist."

and he makes absurd generalization about physicists and ridicules them:

"I want to start by telling you about the historical development of quantum theory, as this history is told by physicists today. The so-called history that physicists believe is so absurd, that I’ve decided to present it to you as a fairy tale, which it is. Fairy tales are sometimes read to children at night until they go to sleep. Well, this fairy tale serves the same purpose. It has put physicists to sleep for the past seventy years."

And he often asserts that most all physicists are in full agreement with the most controversial positions:

"Physicists today, as I said, take the exact opposite approach; they look at those three assumptions and they say: identity – out, causality – out, number three – self-evident truism. They interpret these experiments that show violations in Bell’s theorem as proving once and for all that “reality has been refuted”; long live the void of nihilism, where contradictions exist and physical entities don’t".

No wonder there have been few attempts to analyse Harriman's arguments in the 10 years since he delivered these lectures. Why bother to refute someone whose stock-in-trade is abuse and hyperbolic argument? This situation is unfortunate since Harriman has interesting arguments that deserve careful analysis.

4. Harriman's Conclusion

We’ve seen the devastating effects of Kantian philosophy on physics. In 19th Century Germany, we saw physics swing from the Kantian mysticism of the Romantics to the Kantian empiricism of the Positivists. Both schools were based on Kant’s subjectivism and on his fundamental premise that reason cannot know reality. By the end of the 19th Century, a consensus had been reached. Physicists renounced the goal of understanding the physical world, and humbly accepted the job of describing the appearances. The immediate result was Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity, in which he rejected any physical explanation for the constant speed of light, and focused solely on the mathematical relations of the appearances. The final result was quantum theory, which, in the spirit of Kantian nihilism, explicitly rejected causality.

"The question I want to raise is: what is required to get physics back on track? And, of course, the obvious answer is: Objectivism. In the distant future, if and when we reach the stage where college graduates have all read and understood Leonard Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, the science of physics will be put back on a rational foundation. At that point, physicists will shake their heads in amazement when they look back at 20th Century physics, which will be considered the most bizarre episode in the history of science. They will understand why it happened, but they will still find it difficult to believe that an entire century could have taken Kant’s ideas so seriously."

I am worried that a generation of Objectivists have attended courses where Harriman's views on the corruption of physics have hardly been contested, and now he intends to unleash them on the unsuspecting world as his next book.

I am sympathetic to the idea of a general theory of objectivity that unites physics, philosophy and mathematics; and Harriman is one of the few Objectivists writing on this topic, so I think it is important to try to understand his writing and lectures, but I think his polemical style and lack of objectivity is a fatal flaw that will damage Objectivism.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Krell

[Starbuckle]

Shayme wrote: "I guess I better learn to write like a fawning sycophant in order not to have some nitwit who prefers appearance to substance pin a Herbert Spencer quote on me."

Idiotic.

[sjw]

Shayme wrote: "I guess I better learn to write like a fawning sycophant in order not to have some nitwit who prefers appearance to substance pin a Herbert Spencer quote on me."

Idiotic.

Reasonable men throughout history have had to deal with creatures like you and Ted. The ironic thing is that the Spencer quote, just like this Leonardo da Vinci quote, was probably meant more for small, petty-minded people like you and Ted, not somebody who actually has an original thought (or a serious criticism) in their head.

"I realize many will call my little work useless; these people, as far as I'm concerned, are like those whom Demetrius was talking about when he said that he cared no more for the wind that issued from their mouths than the wind that issued from their lower extremities. ... So, whenever a person of this sort picks up any of my works to read, I half expect him to put it to his nose the way a monkey does, or ask me if it's good to eat."

Shayne

[Ellen Stuttle]

When the price falls below $1.00 or when I can borrow it from the local library. Then I will go over the book with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and I will analyze and criticize -as it is, as it is written, verbetim- [sic] in my best literal minded Aspie fashion. [....]

Send me your mailing address by private messenger, and I'll send you a copy of the book. I would so enjoy reading the explosions I can confidently predict would ensue. I'd consider the entertainment well worth the small price of the book (I'm on Amazon Prime, so the shipping is "free" -- actually, a yearly fee but worth it since, given the number of books I buy over a year's time, I end up saving on shipping.)

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

When the price falls below $1.00 or when I can borrow it from the local library. Then I will go over the book with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and I will analyze and criticize -as it is, as it is written, verbetim- [sic] in my best literal minded Aspie fashion. [....]

Send me your mailing address by private messenger, and I'll send you a copy of the book. I would so enjoy reading the explosions I can confidently predict would ensue. I'd consider the entertainment well worth the small price of the book (I'm on Amazon Prime, so the shipping is "free" -- actually, a yearly fee but worth it since, given the number of books I buy over a year's time, I end up saving on shipping.)

Ellen

Good idea. It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. Your voice isn't authoritative enough to get the job done, but maybe Bob will have better luck.

Ghs

[Starbuckle]

Oh Gawd.... I am being forced, for the first time in my life, to confront the yawning emptiness within, the tragic dearth of any independent inquiring capacity, the proliferent lacunae where my values and psycho-epistemology should be.... Who'd-a thunk it would be a preposterous little punk who would be able to destroy my beautiful wickedness.... Look what you've done...I'm melting...melting...oh what a world...what a world...

[9thdoctor]

I'll send you a copy of the book. I would so enjoy reading the explosions I can confidently predict would ensue.

It’s worth hearing the audiobook just to experience the utter pomposity of the prose to full effect.

[sjw]

Oh Gawd.... I am being forced, for the first time in my life, to confront the yawning emptiness within, the tragic dearth of any independent inquiring capacity, the proliferent lacunae where my values and psycho-epistemology should be.... Who'd-a thunk it would be a preposterous little punk who would be able to destroy my beautiful wickedness.... Look what you've done...I'm melting...melting...oh what a world...what a world...

My book review was simply a few thoughts I had on the book. These thoughts made you and Ted very hostile for some reason. What can I conclude but that your anger reveals a mind recoiling at something opposite to itself -- a person who actually thinks. Particularly given that neither of you have actually taken up any of the points I raised in the review.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Herbert Spencer once remarked that the primary purpose of many reviewers is to show how much more clever they are than the author.

"I was present in an eariler Harriman/Peikoff lecture on the subject of this book. When it came time to discuss the Galileo pendulum experiments, I asked whether Peikoff saw anything interesting in that in spite of the fact that Galileo made an error in arriving at his formula, it ended up furthering the science that would eventually provide the correct formula. (This is my recollection of the question from years ago; it is not verbatim). Harriman was in the front row, violently shaking his head "NO!" Peikoff then said that I must not have read his book, OPAR. I said that I had. Then he said I must not have understood the part about "context." This is the Peikovian way of saying that I had it wrong that Galileo had made any mistake whatsoever, that the formula was "true in Galileo's context of knowledge." Finally Peikoff answered that he saw nothing of interest.

"Now I find in the book a semi-recognition that the formula was indeed actually wrong, that it was formed from approximations and that Galileo himself was "privately expressing his dissatisfaction with the lack of a proof" while (evidently) pretending in public that it was rock-solid truth."

-Shayne “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.” Wissler (http://www.amazon.co...erBy=addTwoStar)

Edited November 24, 2010 by Ted Keer

[sjw]

Herbert Spencer once remarked that the primary purpose of many reviewers is to show how much more clever they are than the author.

http://www.amazon.co...erBy=addTwoStar

"I was present in an eariler Harriman/Peikoff lecture on the subject of this book. When it came time to discuss the Galileo pendulum experiments, I asked whether Peikoff saw anything interesting in that in spite of the fact that Galileo made an error in arriving at his formula, it ended up furthering the science that would eventually provide the correct formula. (This is my recollection of the question from years ago; it is not verbatim). Harriman was in the front row, violently shaking his head "NO!" Peikoff then said that I must not have read his book, OPAR. I said that I had. Then he said I must not have understood the part about "context." This is the Peikovian way of saying that I had it wrong that Galileo had made any mistake whatsoever, that the formula was "true in Galileo's context of knowledge." Finally Peikoff answered that he saw nothing of interest.

"Now I find in the book a semi-recognition that the formula was indeed actually wrong, that it was formed from approximations and that Galileo himself was "privately expressing his dissatisfaction with the lack of a proof" while (evidently) pretending in public that it was rock-solid truth."

This is why Ted is so hysterically in love with Logical Leap. He thinks he can divine my motives from a few paragraphs as some kind of self-evident "just knowing", just as Harriman thinks he can divine causes from from how something strikes him. As I wrote elsewhere in that review:

"I think a true scientist must be willing to question any premise, however self-evident it may appear to him, in his search to build a non-contradictory theory. So in my opinion this gen theory is a recipe for 1) jumping to conclusions and 2) tenaciously sticking to them regardless of new information learned later. That there must be unquestionable givens at the base of our thinking in order to ground it I would not dispute, but I would argue with putting at this base something so monumental as a causal identification. Causes are identified by thinking, they are not given to us by nature for free."

Ted, like Harriman, has the mind of a zealot. He sees something and decides that he's seen everything.

Shayne

[sjw]

Ted, you are the one who has complained to MSK about moderation policies being too light here. And yet you seize a quote by GHS and tack it on me. You add no substance to this thread, just a petty personal attack on me. What is your purpose? To edify? To enlighten? Or is it really as it appears: to stalk someone who keeps beating you at arguments? Why don't you stop being a coward and actually deal with my arguments rather than obsessively and hysterically attacking my person at every opportunity?

You like to think yourself intelligent. Well step up to the plate. Show us your intellect. Deal with the arguments. By citing that Spencer quote and tacking it onto me, you presume yourself to be a better man than me. And yet look what you stoop to. Stop being a hypocrite.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Krell concluded:

I am sympathetic to the idea of a general theory of objectivity that unites physics, philosophy and mathematics; and Harriman is one of the few Objectivists writing on this topic, so I think it is important to try to understand his writing and lectures, but I think his polemical style and lack of objectivity is a fatal flaw that will damage Objectivism.

Good post. You make a number of valid criticisms, unfortunately.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Herbert Spencer once remarked that the primary purpose of many reviewers is to show how much more clever they are than the author.

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/product-reviews/0451230051/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar

I guess I better learn to write like a fawning sycophant in order not to have some nitwit who prefers appearance to substance pin a Herbert Spencer quote on me. This yahoo seems to have it down:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UCPF4APPU3M/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2UCPF4APPU3M

Shayne

For the record, I didn't have you or any other particular person in mind when I quoted Spencer. I encountered Spencer's remark decades ago (I believe it is from his Autobiography), and I try to keep it in mind when I comment on or review books; for me, it serves as a kind of check on hubris. It seemed to fit, in a rough-and-ready manner, in my post, so I included it.

Ghs