tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1073292518170482722..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The McCaskey Objectischism Part 2Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13028193243916320632010-12-09T10:36:14.149-08:002010-12-09T10:36:14.149-08:00Neil: There’s a relevant detail you got wrong conc...Neil: There’s a relevant detail you got wrong concerning the Hsieh/Mosque imbroglio. Note the timeline: Comrade Sonia issued her own fatwa, to the effect that if you didn’t agree with her about the GZ Mosque being ok because of property rights, you’ll be Facebook unfriended, anathematized…she doesn’t want to talk to you anymore. Then came Peikoff’s podcast, his fatwa. Soon she didn’t allow discussion of it on grounds that OCON was coming up, and everyone wants to enjoy themselves. You’re making it seem like she disagreed after his podcast, when in fact his statement contradicted her earlier statements, and it was impossible for her to backtrack, so she shut down the dialogue. This isn’t a case of her intellectual integrity on display, and your piece at least implies that it is.Donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49698497436182795212010-12-02T12:02:54.034-08:002010-12-02T12:02:54.034-08:00@Dragonfly
Perhaps then if the physicists had bee...@Dragonfly<br /><br />Perhaps then if the physicists had been Objectivists the results would have been entirely different!<br /><br />Joking aside, this in fact seems to be the basic implication of Hsieh's, Peikoff's etc remarks about physics being "corrupted" by Kant. So nutty.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24096121753297036182010-12-02T03:58:11.181-08:002010-12-02T03:58:11.181-08:00Greg,
When Hsieh converted she brought a number o...Greg,<br /><br />When Hsieh converted she brought a number of TOC friends with her. These are a small percentage of ARI supporters, but the implication was that the ARI was not as bad they thought when they supported Kelley. Perhaps this is all a rude awakening.<br /><br />I got the impression that Hsieh was angling for an Anthem Scholarship or an Objectivist Academic Center position.<br /><br />Yaron Brook shows up on Fox once in a while. Why doesn't someone ask him about this?<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-48891361776862271282010-12-02T03:01:35.139-08:002010-12-02T03:01:35.139-08:00If Kant had never existed, there wouldn't have...If Kant had never existed, there wouldn't have been corrupt physicists who perform evil experiments...Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1993299232569152842010-12-01T19:28:17.480-08:002010-12-01T19:28:17.480-08:00@Alex,
Clearly if Kant had never existed, this ex...@Alex,<br /><br />Clearly if Kant had never existed, this experiment's results would have been entirely different...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54677853781727364442010-12-01T18:31:56.927-08:002010-12-01T18:31:56.927-08:00Uh oh -- better not mention this article to Harrim...Uh oh -- better not mention this article to Harriman or Peikoff...<br /><br />http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.htmlAlexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45330457372033415122010-12-01T08:00:27.768-08:002010-12-01T08:00:27.768-08:00What was the decision process behind making "...<em>What was the decision process behind making "The Logical Leap" by David Harriman an official ARI Project?</em><br /><br />It would have been an "official" product assuming that ARI was paying Harriman to write it. After all, doesn't ARI pay Harriman's salary? (And if not, who's paying him? He doesn't work for the defense department any more.) As far as I can make out, Harriman began his career in Objectivism as a lecturer on physics and an editor of Rand's journals. The most likely scenario is that he was the only physics "expert" who was willing to espouse the Rand/Peikoff narrative of Kant's influence on 20th century physics, and that gave him entry to elite Objectivist circles. Although Harriman doesn't have a doctorate (which might otherwise have been a mark against him), he allegedly tried to write a thesis on the Kant's corruption of physics, only to be frustrated by his academic superiors. This likely got him sympathy with Peikoff (or some other high level Objectivist), from which he managed to leverage a position at ARI.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76252188560661744122010-12-01T02:58:43.245-08:002010-12-01T02:58:43.245-08:00"What was the decision process behind making ..."What was the decision process behind making "The Logical Leap" By David Harriman an official ARI Project?"<br /><br />This strikes me as the big question. McCaskeys's private criticisms were well-known and it didn't seem to be a problem.<br /><br />It was only when LP said he had to go that it become an "official project" which everyone had to support.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62128440624660476102010-11-30T21:10:49.498-08:002010-11-30T21:10:49.498-08:00I'm somewhat curious. What was the decision pr...I'm somewhat curious. What was the decision process behind making "The Logical Leap" By David Harriman an official ARI Project? <br /><br />Was the ARI board involved in some capacity? Was it started before the tenure of the current incumbents? Did the board vote for it before it was written? After? At All? Did they request work beforehand by David Harriman to see what kind of work he was capable of delivering in general? Where the opinions of the board, or the opinions of their proxies sought by David Harriman as he was working? Was he required to seek such advice? I'm sure other questions could be asked.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47392650153210401662010-11-30T09:42:21.969-08:002010-11-30T09:42:21.969-08:00The real question is how this is going to affect A...<i>The real question is how this is going to affect ARI finances. From what I gather, McCaskey was a big contributor to ARI. </i><br /><br />That might have been the key driver of the "someone has got to go" statement. Both guys might simply be the largest source of ARI funding (or something close to it) and it was painful to the ARI to see one go, but they let go the person who had to go.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53911714888373688622010-11-30T08:48:21.832-08:002010-11-30T08:48:21.832-08:00One thing else that I couldn't help noticing. ...One thing else that I couldn't help noticing. The Hsiehs' come forth with the following astonishing admission: "Yaron Brook explained to us that the core issues were covered by ARI Board confidentiality provisions."<br />The excuse Brook gave for these provisions is that the McCaskey matter is ultimately "private." What is that supposed to mean? The only justifiable reason I can think of for regarding the matter as "private" is if the issue involved sensitive personal matters that no one wanted to make public. But is that true in this case? No. Even Brook admits that. So why the confidentiality provisions? What is Brook and ARI hiding? What does an organization allegedly staffed and controlled by rational people dedicated to "reason" and reality need with secrecy? Given that they are dependent on outside donations, shouldn't they be transparent in how they make decisions? Shouldn't they be setting a good example to the world they are trying to change? <br /><br />Of course, all these questions are purely rhetorical. We all know why ARI insists on "confidentiality agreements." Their business is not conducted "rationally," and it would be fatal to the organization if people knew what went on behind the scenes.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53515514660870507502010-11-30T08:29:24.622-08:002010-11-30T08:29:24.622-08:00"I have been patiently waiting for the Hsiehs..."I have been patiently waiting for the Hsiehs to give up on Objectivism.... It's coming, I think, and it'll be a huge blowup."<br /><br />Perhaps so. I don't know much about the Hsiehs, but there's no doubt that Ms. Hsieh has officially become and Objectivist non-person: that's your status when Peikoff refers to you without using your name (the same is true of Craig Biddle). The only question with the Hsiehs is how much influence they have over ARI doners. Were they to burn their bridges with ARI as they burned them with Kelley's organization, how would this affect ARI funding? Would ARI take a big hit, or would it be relatively minor? How much leverage do the Hsiehs' have over Yaron Brook and ARI? Brook will be under pressure from Peikoff to keep his distance from them. But if a Hsieh blowup would cost ARI bigtime, he's got to be careful about alienating her.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14256782009700619702010-11-30T08:11:24.616-08:002010-11-30T08:11:24.616-08:00"The schism seems to have died down."
M..."The schism seems to have died down."<br /><br />Maybe so. But no earthquake is satisfied at once. The real question is how this is going to affect ARI finances. From what I gather, McCaskey was a big contributor to ARI. The manner in which he was booted may convince other doners to opt out. This will affect staffing levels at ARI. Because of Peikoff's "someone has to go," people may end up losing their jobs. The elite at ARI may not get as big a pay raise as they were hoping for. This will inevitably lead to resentment against Peikoff. This is hardly a healthy dynamic for orthodox Objectivism moving forward.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68933786578749503192010-11-30T01:06:57.724-08:002010-11-30T01:06:57.724-08:00If the fate of Objectivism hangs on a definitive a...If the fate of Objectivism hangs on a definitive answer as to whether wave packets have an exact position or momentum, then it's finished.Anon69noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9823456077536566352010-11-29T20:14:37.581-08:002010-11-29T20:14:37.581-08:00I have been patiently waiting for the Hsiehs to gi...I have been patiently waiting for the Hsiehs to give up on Objectivism. Not just OO, but Objectivism, period. It's coming, I think, and it'll be a huge blowup. I'm thinking two years, tops.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71806285177779192892010-11-29T16:35:35.772-08:002010-11-29T16:35:35.772-08:00The schism seems to have died down.
I think the k...The schism seems to have died down.<br /><br />I think the key question left is whether the ARI bookstore will continue to sell The Objective Standard and whether ARI writers will continue to write for it. (From what I can tell 100% of the writers are ARI supporters and associates.)<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72438562245019619762010-11-29T16:26:15.251-08:002010-11-29T16:26:15.251-08:00Saul's Post --
http://www.objectivistliving.c...Saul's Post --<br /><br />http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9542&st=40&p=114175&hl=saul&fromsearch=1&#entry114175Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54445769037904903162010-11-29T15:28:49.484-08:002010-11-29T15:28:49.484-08:00One of Harriman's claims is that "modern&...One of Harriman's claims is that "modern" physics (that is, physics since at least a century) - of course thanks to the evil infuence of Kant - only attempts to <i>describe</i> the physical world instead of trying to <i>understand</i> it. Harriman doesn't realize that any "understanding" is in fact nothing else than a description of the found regularities, reflected in physical laws. Does he really think that the ideas of his big hero Newton give <i>more</i> understanding than modern physics? Then what understanding does the notion of mysterious "action at a distance" give us? Aren't Newton's laws also just descriptions of the regularities in the physical world, and how is that different from quantum mechanics and relativity?<br /><br />The <i>real</i> reason for Harriman's incorrect conclusion is that the results of modern physics are not <i>intuitive</i>, they go against our intuitions that we've acquired in a macroscopic world, and that they therefore give no explanation. Harriman and other Objectivists long for a simple, predictable worldview, with atoms and elementary particles like little localized billiard balls, behaving in a neat Newtonian way, but alas for them the evidence has shown that this picture is false. <br /><br />You also hear for example Objectivist idiots often claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty relation is just a description of a measurement problem, but not a reflection of reality itself (again an irresistible longing for the Newtonian billiard balls). They probably base that on the example of the so-called Heisenberg microscope, which is in fact <i>not</i> a correct example, but a first attempt by Heisenberg to illustrate his uncertainty relation in a graphic example, just like the original, incorrect Bohr model was a first illustration of the quantum principles in an atom. <br /><br />Heisenberg's microscope example incorrectly suggested that the electron <i>does</i> have an exact position and momentum, but that you couldn't measure them exactly simultaneously. Instead one could better use another example, which isn't quite correct either (only the full theory gives the correct answer) but shows better how the uncertainty is an inherent factor of reality itself, namely by considering the electron as a little wave packet. Such a wave packet doesn't <i>have</i> an exact position nor an exact momentum. But for people who still think in terms of little billiard balls this is of course anathema. If reality doesn't correspond to your prejudices, so much the worse for reality!Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12957388552535124702010-11-29T14:00:00.387-08:002010-11-29T14:00:00.387-08:00The link you have to the comment by "Saul&quo...The link you have to the comment by "Saul" on Diana Heish's blog leads to a comment that has been removed. Did you save "Saul's" comment? Or can you reconstruct its basic argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88968819887981395722010-11-29T12:03:07.604-08:002010-11-29T12:03:07.604-08:00Henry:
>I find it interesting that I don’t see ...Henry:<br />>I find it interesting that I don’t see anywhere in Peikoff’s or Brook’s responses a direct challenge or refutation of McCaskey’s points about Harriman’s book.<br /><br />McCaskey's comments are mild-mannered and not even very lucid themselves. That they could trigger such a firestorm - they're an Amazon review fergaltsakes - only indicates the volatility and fragility of the orthodox environment. Peikoff's overwhelming intellectual insecurity has never been so obvious, with heavy irony for the supposed "secure" foundations of Objectivism. The underlying offence I extract from McCaskey's timid remarks is the replacement of the Objectivist Hero such as Newton, with concepts springing fully formed from his forehead, with a more tentative picture of fumbling gradualism and confusion, with insights gradually emerging over time from many minds. This is a vision Randian romantics recoil from in horror, but it seems to be the way it is.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64944639207111792462010-11-29T09:08:50.589-08:002010-11-29T09:08:50.589-08:00"Your analysis has much in common with the wo..."Your analysis has much in common with the work of Kremlinologists back in the days of the USSR."<br /><br />True. Fortunately, there is one important difference. Neither Peikoff nor ARI have nukes. If they did, well, we can only imagine the consequences. "So what brought down American civilization? How was this mighty edifice laid to waste?" "Oh, that's easy: Leonard Peikoff got the bomb."gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85434991095137351402010-11-29T07:06:45.630-08:002010-11-29T07:06:45.630-08:00I find it interesting that I don’t see anywhere in...I find it interesting that I don’t see anywhere in Peikoff’s or Brook’s responses a direct challenge or refutation of McCaskey’s points about Harriman’s book. I was not familiar with McCaskey before this controversy. When this story broke I visited his web site where I found a series of his publications, lectures and presentations, most of which deal with the history of science or induction. In addition he teaches at Stanford wihch has a strong reputation. If anyone among the ARI crew could question Harriman’s thesis McCaskey certainly has the qualifications.Henry Scuoteguazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062216080138678023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29525858046079597592010-11-29T06:55:24.327-08:002010-11-29T06:55:24.327-08:00Again, following the links from this post there is...Again, following the links from this post there is a hidden gem.<br /><br />One of Mrs. Hsiesh's posts is a "fable": "The tale of the cardiac surgeon"<br /><br />If you read it note how the HEROIC SURGEON's keeps getting to give longer and longer diatribes while the other character keeps setting up weaker and weaker strawmen.<br /><br /><br />Truely, it is a tale straight from the school of Mrs. Rand. And in the end it confuses tolerance with stupidity.CuriousReadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88902297662807035202010-11-29T06:13:58.051-08:002010-11-29T06:13:58.051-08:00I wish I could just edit the previous comment, but...I wish I could just edit the previous comment, but I remembered I had an additional point.<br /><br />A great deal of time is spent in the linked posts trying to determine if perkoff is making a MORAL condemnation of McKlaskey. <br /><br />A moral condemation from Perkoiff seems to all but excomunicate McKclaskey. While when some beleived that Perkoiff's condemnation was non moral that still left room for some level of reconciliiation. <br /><br />I think it would take a blind person NOT to see the similarities to Papal edicts and Perkoiffian judgments.<br /><br />Orthodox objectivism once again shows its true authoritarian and quasi theocratic colors when times get difficult.Curious Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72450957817118305822010-11-29T06:06:07.551-08:002010-11-29T06:06:07.551-08:00Fascinating post, Neil. I had no idea things were ...Fascinating post, Neil. I had no idea things were quite this bad in the ARI universe. <br /><br />Your analysis has much in common with the work of Kremlinologists back in the days of the USSR. And what does that say about the present state of Objectivism?Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.com