First, congratulations on your new column!
Second, your point about the ersatz omniscience of certain Objectivists reminded of a line from Leonard Peikoff, which he gave on October 1, 2001, on the O'Reilly Factor. (I might mention that I was also a guest on the Factor a few months ago, to discuss Hamilton College, which as of last week is my alma mater, and Ward Churchill; see http://students.hamilton.edu/2005/jrick/churchill2.htm.)
Here's the relevant excerpt; the subject is "How Should the U.S. Punish Terrorists and Their Allies?"
O'REILLY: Well, what if you're wrong?
PEIKOFF: ... and you would not have the problem.
O'REILLY: What if you're wrong? What if, what if you ignite...
PEIKOFF: Wrong, what if two and two isn't four?
In other words, Peikoff refuses even to entertain the suggestion that he might be mistaken. Whether he is or isn't isn't the point. The fact remains that he presents himself as infallible.
(Edited by Jonathan Rick on 6/02, 4:52am)