The Crisis in Physics—and Its Cause

[merjet]

The Crisis in Physics—and Its Cause. This has been posted to OL already (here and here). I'm posting it again for anybody who may have missed it (like me). Edited December 1, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

The Crisis in Physics—and Its Cause. This has been posted to OL already (here and here). I'm posting it again for anybody who may have missed it (like me).

Physics! What a mess! So how come it succeeds so well in describing, measuring and predicting happenings in the world? How come all this mass of contradictions gives us the technology we have? I love his piece on Einstein. Strange thing. Newton's law of gravitation is empirically falsified (as evidenced by the anomalous precession of the perihelia of planet not correctly predicted by Newton's law). Einstein's nonsense gives us the GPS which measures location anywhere on earth correctly to within ten meters. Strange. Physics, crazy and irrational as it keeps giving us correct (to within measurement errors) answers. Go figure.

Now you know why I pay attentions to results rather than to philosophical rantings and ravings.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Now you know why I pay attentions to results rather than to philosophical rantings and ravings.

Ba'al Chatzaf

However, apparently you pay much less attention to the philosophical rantings and ravings of physicists than that of philosophers. You rant about the latter way more than you do about the former.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

Now you know why I pay attentions to results rather than to philosophical rantings and ravings.

Ba'al Chatzaf

However, apparently you pay much less attention to the philosophical rantings and ravings of physicists than that of philosophers. You rant about the latter way more than you do about the former.

that is because the physicists produce results (the kind we can see and use). What do the philosophers produce? I use my GPS and I think how silly Einstein was about space-time. Sure I do. NOT!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

that is because the physicists produce results (the kind we can see and use). What do the philosophers produce?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Galileo and Newton were natural philosophers. Did they produce nothing?

[BaalChatzaf]

that is because the physicists produce results (the kind we can see and use). What do the philosophers produce?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Galileo and Newton were natural philosophers. Did they produce nothing?

There were not metaphysicians and modern physicists are natural philosopher (archaic expression). I was referring the the metaphysical types who do no science but tell us how silly the scientists are. The natural philosophers (aka scientists in the physical sciences) are producing results. What are the metaphysical theorizers doing for us? How much physics has the Critic Harriman produced? Where all all the Objectivist Physicists, the "John Galts"? Have they gone to the Gulch and are they hiding out?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

I was referring the the metaphysical types who do no science but tell us how silly the scientists are.

I believe it would be way more accurate to say "how silly the scientists are when trying to be philosophers", not when the scientists were producing useful results.

[BaalChatzaf]

I was referring the the metaphysical types who do no science but tell us how silly the scientists are.

I believe it would be way more accurate to say "how silly the scientists are when trying to be philosophers", not when the scientists were producing useful results.

Solution: Disregard everything the physicists tell you except for the physics. Problem solved. Since Science is their main business, their deficiencies in metaphysical explanation does not matter.

Advice: See what the results are. The results speak more eloquently than lectures in metaphysics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 2, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Kimmler]

that is because the physicists produce results (the kind we can see and use). What do the philosophers produce?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Galileo and Newton were natural philosophers. Did they produce nothing?

There were not metaphysicians and modern physicists are natural philosopher (archaic expression). I was referring the the metaphysical types who do no science but tell us how silly the scientists are. The natural philosophers (aka scientists in the physical sciences) are producing results. What are the metaphysical theorizers doing for us? How much physics has the Critic Harriman produced? Where all all the Objectivist Physicists, the "John Galts"? Have they gone to the Gulch and are they hiding out?

Ba'al Chatzaf

That is the $64 000 question and them some!

Perhaps someone here would answer this one?

According to objectivism, Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist ever, was an irrational man because he believed in god. He spent the later part of his life trying to locate heaven. Clearly a waste of time but small beer compared to his epoch making work on optics and the laws of motion. Yet, to objectivist eyes, the later pales into insignificance because of the former. A weird way to look at what he achieved in life.

I'm an atheist, with a small a, but I have to admit that all the scientists at the top of thier game probably do believe in some sort of god. Moreover it does them no harm either. Yet objectivists would say yes it does, they would turn round and say something like "what could Newton have achieved had he not believed in god". Good grief as if the man did not do enough!

Face it the prime movers in science are the tribalist, collectivist, looter, whim-worshipper types.

Don't hold your breath for objectivists contribution to science.

[merjet]

According to objectivism, Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist ever, was an irrational man because he believed in god. He spent the later part of his life trying to locate heaven. Clearly a waste of time but small beer compared to his epoch making work on optics and the laws of motion. Yet, to objectivist eyes, the later pales into insignificance because of the former. A weird way to look at what he achieved in life.

You are obviously fabricating. Ayn Rand said near nothing about Isaac Newton. Peikoff praises him highly in his DIM lectures and ignores Newton's religious side. Harriman does likewise in The Logical Leap.

[anthony]

Face it the prime movers in science are the tribalist, collectivist, looter, whim-worshipper types.

Don't hold your breath for objectivists contribution to science.

Kimmler,

At the heart of all scientist 'prime movers', whatever their beliefs,or their mixed premises, is a dedication to reality and reason.

In my book, this defines them as small 'o' objectivists.

Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak.

The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long.

Reading your snide little digs, it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension - that Objectivists claim to be a superior race.

It takes an egalitarian to be an elitist, imo,; and to be an elitist reveals the soul of a second hander, which is a small, mean, thing. Rational selfishness necessitates a life of self-made soul, of objective standards not dependent upon, or in competition with, the arbitrary standards of others.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak.

The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long.

How long? Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[AristotlesAdvance]

Face it the prime movers in science are the tribalist, collectivist, looter, whim-worshipper types.

Don't hold your breath for objectivists contribution to science.

Kimmler,

At the heart of all scientist 'prime movers', whatever their beliefs,or their mixed premises, is a dedication to reality and reason.

In my book, this defines them as small 'o' objectivists.

Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak.

The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long.

Reading your snide little digs, it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension - that Objectivists claim to be a superior race.

It takes an egalitarian to be an elitist, imo,; and to be an elitist reveals the soul of a second hander, which is a small, mean, thing. Rational selfishness necessitates a life of self-made soul, of objective standards not dependent upon, or in competition with, the arbitrary standards of others.

Tony

At the heart of all scientist 'prime movers', whatever their beliefs,or their mixed premises, is a dedication to reality and reason.

In my book, this defines them as small 'o' objectivists.

So anyone "dedicated to reality and reason" is an objectivist with a small "o"? Talk about self-serving! That's right up there with Dorothy Sayers' quip that "All good work is Christian work."

Very simply, what Rand did was to congregate the very best of their rationality under one roof, so to speak.

And how did she do that?

The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long.

I hear that often . . . but only from Objectivists. I also remember hearing the same thing over 30 years ago, and to date, the influence of Objectivism on any discipline -- science included -- has been nil. I suppose True Believers will then use Objectivism to explain the lack of Objectivism's influence by reference to a presumed irrationality of all parties concerned, including scientists.

The pious belief that one's beloved philosophical system will change everyone's mind for the better "at some point in the indefinite future" is typical of cult worship, and is highly reminiscent of the way leftists in the 1930s believed that Marxism will bring the blessings of a socialist workers' paradise "sometime in the future." Most Objectivists I've encountered are mentally living in a utopian bubble called "Galt's Gulch" and are unwilling -- afraid, perhaps? -- to venture forth and live in the real world.

it seems that you are laboring under a misapprehension - that Objectivists claim to be a superior race.

They claim to be superior people irrespective of race. I haven't found a single exception to this on any of the Objectivist-related sites I've encountered. It's especially ludicrous because most Objectivists don't know much of anything: they know very little history; apart from Rand's works, they are quite illiterate in both literature and philosophy. Objectivism is a sort of easy substitute for real education (which makes it quite similar to other cult thought-systems).

Rational selfishness necessitates a life of self-made soul, of objective standards not dependent upon, or in competition with, the arbitrary standards of others.

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Why would the standards of "others" necessarily be arbitrary? Why even assume that from the start? Answer: to make oneself appear superior.

[Brant Gaede]

I have no idea how Objectivism is supposed to inform anything, but Rand seemed to think it could inform almost everything, even acting.

I think in terms of a backwash: Let's say someone--a scientist--is doubtful or conflicted about something apart from his work itself and Objectivism enables him to more effectively deal with his situation--okay. It could be that or something else that might help him. This works best for those who don't get swept up in the Orthodoxy, which has gone cult--neocon--nuts.

I like to think of myself, illogically, as an Objectivist with a big "O" instead of a small one because it looks better. This is a triumph of esthetics over reason.

Classical Objectivism had its field day in the 1960s. Unfortunately, it didn't go on to something better, such as true individualism, critical thinking and a stronger emphasis on individual rights.

--Brant

[AristotlesAdvance]

I have no idea how Objectivism is supposed to inform anything, but Rand seemed to think it could inform almost everything, even acting.

I think in terms of a backwash: Let's say someone--a scientist--is doubtful or conflicted about something apart from his work itself and Objectivism enables him to more effectively deal with his situation--okay. It could be that or something else that might help him. This works best for those who don't get swept up in the Orthodoxy, which has gone cult--neocon--nuts.

I like to think of myself, illogically, as an Objectivist with a big "O" instead of a small one because it looks better. This is a triumph of esthetics over reason.

Classical Objectivism had its field day in the 1960s. Unfortunately, it didn't go on to something better, such as true individualism, critical thinking and a stronger emphasis on individual rights.

--Brant

One problem is that "true individualism" (as opposed to "false individualism"?), critical thinking, and a stronger emphasis on individual rights do not require Objectivism -- with or without a capital "O" -- to defend them. They are the "common ground" of a number of systems of thought, including classical, enlightenment, and 19th-century liberal/utilitarian.

Another problem is that, to the extent Objectivist writers have turned their attention to the above values, I don't see that they have done any better or more effective job of defending them than other systems of thought.

A third problem, of course, is that Objectivism appears to be profoundly anti-scientific-method. It approves, of course, of the PRODUCTS of scientific investigation, especially when such results can be translated into technology. When it comes to the realm of pure theory, of course, they are often cranks, criticizing various theories on the basis of the theories' apparent deviation from beloved Objectivist notions of epistemology, or apparent adherence to despised systems of thought such as that of Kant.

Because of this, Objectivists have lately started on the not-unexpected activity of rewriting intellectual history (e.g, the recent book on scientific induction). Furthermore, it is quite apparent from discussions with Objectivists about traditional 19th and 20th century ideas of biological evolution, that they are quite ready to throw out a cosmological theory such as "Big Bang" and adopt a steady-state model in order to give themselves enough time for putative Darwinian processes to work (since, as can be shown, a Big-Bang model claiming that the entire universe cannot be more than about 12 billion years old is not enough time for random processes + "natural selection" alone to have accomplished the creation of life from non-living entities, not to mention the apparent speciation of life from an original primal form. To get these results, Objectivists -- those who finally manage to understand the arguments and what's actually at issue -- realize that their universe needs far more time than a mere 12 billion years. That's why they usually gravitate [sorry for the pun] to some form of steady-state model).

[Brant Gaede]

You might be onto something with eschewing of the "common ground." When you do that you pull up the draw bridge and free the alligators into the moat.

--Brant

[anthony]

Who's really being superior?

This is not the first time I've seen Objectivism criticized for the reason that some of its proponents are not highly educated.

For me, it's another form of elitism - the plebs are getting uppity. After all, what right does one have to espouse or apply a philosophy without having studied and grasped ALL philosophies? (Also, science, economics, politics, aesthetics, and so on.)

Rand popularized philosophy, and academic high-brows won't forgive her, - their gripe is that many O'ists didn't 'earn their stripes.'

Well, many have done, and their depth of knowledge and rationality is displayed on this forum, and elsewhere.

It is those Joe Soaps of Objectivism, like myself, who have long made the choice to integrate its principles in living, that really bothers them, apparently; that this is a beneficial system for one's own personal, private and independent life. The proof's in the pudding, and nobody, with all the superior intellect/education in the world, can take that away from one.

A.A., whatever I write here is my own opinion, and much of it is a 'work in progress' - so I don't pretend to expertly represent Objectivism.

Whether or not O'ism "takes root" influentially, is a (hopeful)

prediction on my part, but ultimately I am more engaged in its direct value and application to me, here and now. I believe that the majority of Objectivists independently experience this.

Does that answer to your 'cultist','True Believer', attack?

[AristotlesAdvance]

Who's really being superior?

This is not the first time I've seen Objectivism criticized for the reason that some of its proponents are not highly educated.

For me, it's another form of elitism - the plebs are getting uppity. After all, what right does one have to espouse or apply a philosophy without having studied and grasped ALL philosophies? (Also, science, economics, politics, aesthetics, and so on.)

Rand popularized philosophy, and academic high-brows won't forgive her, - their gripe is that many O'ists didn't 'earn their stripes.'

Well, many have done, and their depth of knowledge and rationality is displayed on this forum, and elsewhere.

It is those Joe Soaps of Objectivism, like myself, who have long made the choice to integrate its principles in living, that really bothers them, apparently; that this is a beneficial system for one's own personal, private and independent life. The proof's in the pudding, and nobody, with all the superior intellect/education in the world, can take that away from one.

A.A., whatever I write here is my own opinion, and much of it is a 'work in progress' - so I don't pretend to expertly represent Objectivism.

Whether or not O'ism "takes root" influentially, is a (hopeful)

prediction on my part, but ultimately I am more engaged in its direct value and application to me, here and now. I believe that the majority of Objectivists independently experience this.

Does that answer to your 'cultist','True Believer', attack?

This is not the first time I've seen Objectivism criticized for the reason that some of its proponents are not highly educated.

Probably for good reason: it's true.

For me, it's another form of elitism - the plebs are getting uppity. After all, what right does one have to espouse or apply a philosophy without having studied and grasped ALL philosophies? (Also, science, economics, politics, aesthetics, and so on.)

Ah, yes, the elitism of having gone to school and studied something, at least, about intellectual history and making use of those insights before shooting one's mouth off in order to promote one's favorite author. Yes, elitism. Excellent analysis.

Rand popularized philosophy, and academic high-brows won't forgive her, -

See what I mean about shooting one's mouth off without knowing any background information? What about Will and Ariel Durant's "Story of Philosophy"? or their "Story of Civilization"? What about all those books popularizing philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler? What about the important books and articles by Eric Hoffer (who wrote "The True Believer")? There are many more. The fact is, Rand is in the tradition of those who popularized philosophy; the assertion by her acolytes that she invented the whole genre is demonstrably false.

their gripe is that many O'ists didn't 'earn their stripes.'

No, their gripe is that many are just plain ignorant, and their ignorance leads them to silly conclusions. That's a different charge.

It is those Joe Soaps of Objectivism, like myself, who have long made the choice to integrate its principles in living, that really bothers them, apparently; that this is a beneficial system for one's own personal, private and independent life. the proof's in the pudding, and nobody, with all the superior intellect/education in the world, can take that away from one.

Stop crying. No one's trying to take away your intellectual security blanket.

A.A., whatever I write here is my own opinion, and much of it is a 'work in progress' - so I don't pretend to expertly represent Objectivism.

Whether or not O'ism "takes root" influentially, is a (hopeful)

prediction on my part, but ultimately I am more engaged in its direct value and application to me, here and now. I believe that the majority of Objectivists independently experience this.

Does that answer to your 'cultist','True Believer', attack?

Definitely. You're saying that it's OK to be a cultist True Believer because you are absolutely SINCERE in your cultist True Belief. This feeling is no different from those who follow other cultist True Belief systems like Scientology. They, too, are quite sincere that "The System" (or as Hubbard followers call it, "The Tech") has changed their lives for the better.

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand popularized philosophy, and academic high-brows won't forgive her, - their gripe is that many O'ists didn't 'earn their stripes.'

Well, many have done, and their depth of knowledge and rationality is displayed on this forum, and elsewhere.

It is those Joe Soaps of Objectivism, like myself, who have long made the choice to integrate its principles in living, that really bothers them, apparently; that this is a beneficial system for one's own personal, private and independent life. The proof's in the pudding, and nobody, with all the superior intellect/education in the world, can take that away from one.

Mortimer Adler popularized philosophy longer and better than Rand ever did and Adler had no problem with the Academics. He had full standing as a scholar. I did not agree with Adler's placement of Aristotle at the top rung of philosophy (I would place Hume and Hobbes there), but I never doubted the quality of Adler's presentations. A-1. Top notch.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[AristotlesAdvance]

Rand popularized philosophy, and academic high-brows won't forgive her, - their gripe is that many O'ists didn't 'earn their stripes.'

Well, many have done, and their depth of knowledge and rationality is displayed on this forum, and elsewhere.

It is those Joe Soaps of Objectivism, like myself, who have long made the choice to integrate its principles in living, that really bothers them, apparently; that this is a beneficial system for one's own personal, private and independent life. The proof's in the pudding, and nobody, with all the superior intellect/education in the world, can take that away from one.

Mortimer Adler popularized philosophy longer and better than Rand ever did and Adler had no problem with the Academics. He had full standing as a scholar. I did not agree with Adler's placement of Aristotle at the top rung of philosophy (I would place Hume and Hobbes there), but I never doubted the quality of Adler's presentations. A-1. Top notch.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thanks, Ba'al!

I've recently come across a site with videotaped interviews from 1978 of Friedrich Hayek -- quite interesting! One of his comments that caught my attention was after Hayek was asked by one of the interviewers (who, believe it or not, was the famous Leo Rosten, author of "The Joy of Yiddish", and who, it seems, had attended the London School of Economics -- go figure!) if he knew Mortimer J. Adler during the years that he (i.e., Hayek) taught there. Hayek replied that he arrived at Univ. of Chicago just after Adler left, but he certainly knew Adler's colleague, Robert Hutchins, quite well. Hayek claimed that the entire UofC had the best "cross-pollination" of ideas and scholars from the various departments of any university he had ever known, and that he knew that this had very much been the influence of Adler.

[anthony]

Mr AA,

Your elitist, intellectualist machismo does not impress me.

So far you have demonstrated contempt for anything Objectivist, but nothing of any substance that you actually stand for.

So let's hear it.

Instead of spreading your bile over every thread that offers you an opportunity, start one of your own.

"A Case Against Objectivism", perhaps?

You may find a couple of supporters here, but for the rest, it could demonstrate some intellectual integrity, instead of your present hit-and-run tactics.

You may also find that not everyone is as easy meat as I am.

Do you dare?

Edited December 3, 2010 by whYNOT

[AristotlesAdvance]

Mr AA,

Your elitist, intellectualist machismo does not impress me.

So far you have demonstrated contempt for anything Objectivist, but nothing of any substance that you actually stand for.

So let's hear it.

Instead of spreading your bile over every thread that offers you an opportunity, start one of your own.

"A Case Against Objectivism", perhaps?

You may find a couple of supporters here, but for the rest, it could demonstrate some intellectual integrity, instead of your present hit-and-run tactics.

You may also find that not everyone is as easy meat as I am.

Do you dare?

Instead of spreading your bile over every thread that offers you an opportunity, start one of your own.

"A Case Against Objectivism", perhaps?

OK. I offer the recent posts of whYNOT as Exhibit A.

You may also find that not everyone is as easy meat as I am.

Easy meat? Sounds exciting. Are you a woman?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

AristotlesAdvance,

I have been through several of your posts and, so far, all you have done is amuse me.

You don't have a clue about where you are at. You think you are in some true-believer cult-worship place and you definitely show signs of not having read hardly anything on OL.

So I'll make it easy for you. OL is not a site devoted to preaching Rand's ideas. It is a site where people who share a common experience can interact.

Most all of the regulars here on OL were strongly attracted to Rand's works at some point in their lives. Many still are. But here on OL, this is simply a starting point or frame of reference for each person to continue to develop his/her own independent thinking. Interacting with others who have had a common experience is a good thing for this.

If you actually read the forum, you will notice that some people go in a more traditional way and others go off in wildly different directions. This is the nature of people working out their own thinking.

But I don't expect a true-believer like yourself to understand that. Yes, I know you. You are a true believer of the Randroid fundamentalist sort. The only thing different between you and them is the side you are on, but your intellectual habits are identical.

Pure tribalism with a strong dose of conceit.

In my world, people identify something correctly before they evaluate it. I call this the cognitive before the normative process. How can a person correctly judge what he doesn't know? He can't. But that doesn't seem to stop you.

Going from your posts, you do like the fundies do--make an evaluation based on God knows what, then go out and try to fit the whole world into your prejudice.

The proof is in the boneheaded statements you have made about "all Objectivists this" and "all Objectivists that," when you are on a site surrounded by many people who are the exact opposite of what you complain about. All you have to do is read, but I don't expect that from a true-believer.

I am particularly amused by the following:

They claim to be superior people irrespective of race. I haven't found a single exception to this on any of the Objectivist-related sites I've encountered.

Let me not disappoint you.

I hold that my manner of thinking is vastly superior to yours, but not because of Objectivism, per se. It's because I try to evaluate what I have taken the effort to know and keep a lid on blind prejudice. You show that you are the opposite.

The extreme version of your kind of thinking is bigotry and I definitely consider that to be inferior.

... to date, the influence of Objectivism on any discipline -- science included -- has been nil.

I can't help but notice that AristotlesAdvance is strutting about on a site called Objectivist Living and I, for one, am not on a site called AristotlesAdvance. I haven't seen signs that anyone else around here is, either.

If you truly believe that the influence of Objectivism on "any discipline" has been nil, then why are you are devoting the unrepeatable moments of your life to a big fat nothing? I can't help but judge a person who devotes his life to what he perceives to be a trifle as a loser.

I'm doing something productive in my own life and I still find the time to run this site.

What are you doing other than blindly bashing people you don't know and don't know about according to your prejudice?

I'll go a little further. I would wager good money, and I believe I would win, that I know why. I believe you are not trolling on sites of people in the disciplines you have studied because they will not let you get away with your vanity trip based on half-assed thinking. I bet they would demand you know something correctly before you evaluate it and they would make fun of you when you try to pull your crap over on them.

You and Randroid fundies, you're all the same. Different color. Same crap.

Michael

[Xray]

A third problem, of course, is that Objectivism appears to be profoundly anti-scientific-method. It approves, of course, of the PRODUCTS of scientific investigation, especially when such results can be translated into technology. When it comes to the realm of pure theory, of course, they are often cranks, criticizing various theories on the basis of the theories' apparent deviation from beloved Objectivist notions of epistemology, or apparent adherence to despised systems of thought such as that of Kant.

Because of this, Objectivists have lately started on the not-unexpected activity of rewriting intellectual history (e.g, the recent book on scientific induction). Furthermore, it is quite apparent from discussions with Objectivists about traditional 19th and 20th century ideas of biological evolution, that they are quite ready to throw out a cosmological theory such as "Big Bang" and adopt a steady-state model in order to give themselves enough time for putative Darwinian processes to work (since, as can be shown, a Big-Bang model claiming that the entire universe cannot be more than about 12 billion years old is not enough time for random processes + "natural selection" alone to have accomplished the creation of life from non-living entities, not to mention the apparent speciation of life from an original primal form. To get these results, Objectivists -- those who finally manage to understand the arguments and what's actually at issue -- realize that their universe needs far more time than a mere 12 billion years. That's why they usually gravitate [sorry for the pun] to some form of steady-state model).

I believe the main reason why some Objectivists seem to feel uncomfortable with the "Bing Bang" theory is that it comes too dangerously close (in their minds) to the idea of a creatio ex nihilo and some god as the creator of all this.

But, as Lawrence Krauss said it so well:

"Nothing isn't 'nothing' anymore. In physics. Because of the laws of Quantum Mechancis and Special Relativity, "nothing" is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in time so short you can't see them." (LK)

Link to the Krauss lecture Ba'al posted here in the Science & Mathematics section -

"A Universe from Nothing": http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7921&st=0

[quoting poster WhYNot] The influence of O'ism on all disciplines, science included, will take root in the near future for the simple reason that reality can't be escaped for long.

I hear that often . . . but only from Objectivists. I also remember hearing the same thing over 30 years ago, and to date, the influence of Objectivism on any discipline -- science included -- has been nil. I suppose True Believers will then use Objectivism to explain the lack of Objectivism's influence by reference to a presumed irrationality of all parties concerned, including scientists.

Objectivism faces the problems of all closed philosophical or ideological systems: the inability to survive. No closed system has survived so far, and the grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff for Objectivism) who work so hard to keep the system free from other influences, in doing so, in fact contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the death of the doctrine.

Mr AA,

Your elitist, intellectualist machismo does not impress me.

So far you have demonstrated contempt for anything Objectivist, but nothing of any substance that you actually stand for.

So let's hear it.

Instead of spreading your bile over every thread that offers you an opportunity, start one of your own.

"A Case Against Objectivism", perhaps?

You may find a couple of supporters here, but for the rest, it could demonstrate some intellectual integrity, instead of your present hit-and-run tactics.

You may also find that not everyone is as easy meat as I am.

Do you dare?

Instead of spreading your bile over every thread that offers you an opportunity, start one of your own.

"A Case Against Objectivism", perhaps?

OK. I offer the recent posts of whYNOT as Exhibit A.

You may also find that not everyone is as easy meat as I am.

Easy meat? Sounds exciting. Are you a woman?

AA,

I'm afraid you will find only very few women here, AA, so if you are looking for "easy meat", there may be other forums more suitable to satisfy any "hunger" in that field. ;)

I just read a couple of your posts here - you sure fire on all cylinders, delivering a broadside of arguments.

As for making a case against Objectivism, one has to be aware that the critic always has the easier task.

For the critic is free to point out holes, inconsistencies and contradictions in a philosophical or ideological thought system, without, on his part, having the burden of defending a system as a whole, a burden which the advocate of a philosophy does have.

Before you start with exhibits though, for reasons of clarity, imo it is better to present your main objection(s) regarding the premises of Objectivism (if you have any, that is).

I'm also interested in getting an answer to another question I want to ask you in the context of this discussion.

You wrote:

The pious belief that one's beloved philosophical system will change everyone's mind for the better "at some point in the indefinite future" is typical of cult worship, and is highly reminiscent of the way leftists in the 1930s believed that Marxism will bring the blessings of a socialist workers' paradise "sometime in the future."

One could call Marxism a typical 'secular salvation religion'.

Do you believe in any religion (secular or not)? I have not read all your posts here, but have came across a comment by another poster who called you a Creationist.

Are you a Creationist?

Edited December 5, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"Death of a doctrine"? Closed religious systems have survived.

--Brant

isn't any doctrine, by its very nature, closed?