What does it take to convince you you're wrong?

I've been quietly reading the posts here, trying to learn what I can; but a post to a blog I follow started me thinking about Objectivism and Objectivists, and I'm hoping that you might be able to shed light on your view on the topic.

The blog was The Panda's Thumb, and the post was An Ill Wind in Tortuca. The authour, Richard Hoppe, describes his experience with certain people who have mental ruts about certain subjects, and in those areas, are impervious to any evidence to the contrary; it just rolls off their backs, like a turtle's shell, and thus he coins the term 'tortucan' (from Latin for turtle) to describe them. (The authour goes on to further points, which I think are worth reading, but aren't really the point of this post.)

My question is, how do /you/ tell whether or not something you believe is justified by the evidence, or if you're a tortucan for that subject?

Applying that question to one particular field, Hoppe writes,

> I’ve found the fossil intermediate issue handy, for
> antievolutionists are not merely bad at describing what
> they would accept as an ancestor for such-and-so an
> animal. They are literally incapable of thinking about it.
>
> Another good entry question would be: “What technical
> journals do you read on a regular basis?” The honest
> antievolutionist will likely answer “none”—which then
> leads to the follow-up: “Where are you getting your
> antievolution information then?” Odds are they are simply
> repeating the claims of others, and have never got within
> a hundred miles of reading any of the relevant technical
> citations themselves. You can show that by one more
> question: “Did you ever check up on your sources to see
> if they were right?” Tortucans don’t play this sort of
> game very well.

(PS: Thank you, Ted, for linking to the reference describing some HTML codes that function in posts. Do you happen to know which codes are used for block-quoting?)

Post 1

Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 11:51pm

As you would expect, [blockquote] . . . [/blockquote]

Post 2

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 8:22pm

Daniel,

***************
how do /you/ tell whether or not something you believe is justified by the evidence, or if you're a tortucan for that subject?
***************

You check to see if you can bring it back to the self-evident (via logic). If you can't, then you're a "tortucan" for that subject.

Here is an example:

Altruists (welfare statists, mixed economists, etc) say that we should live for others. Comte -- who coined the term "altruist" -- envisioned a national flag with the phrase "Live for Others" on one side (and "Order and Progress" on the other). But there's a problem with altruists when you ask them "why?" (why is sacrificing better than not?). They can't reduce it back to the self-evident via logic. This makes them all tortucans.

The rationally self-interested folks though, can. Here is a quick & dirty attempt to do so ...

1) plants are directly led by genes in order to do the "right thing" (for their survival and growth)
2) animals are directly led by instincts to do the "right thing" (for their survival, growth, and contentment)
3) humans aren't directly led by such things, and so have an inherent metaphysical need for a moral code
4) due to the special nature of man, he needs to be the one thinking and experimenting with different courses of action
5) moral codes which do the "thinking" for him -- or which involve a call of duty -- contradict this special nature
6) therefore, man has got to be free to choose (to deal with whoever he wants and however he wants, if it doesn't violate individual rights)
7) having the freedom to choose individually-beneficial, individual actions (and consensual agreements and trades with others) is the only way that man, on earth, can thrive

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/08, 8:24pm)

Post 3

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 9:45pm

Ed,

There is a flaw in #5. You assume in the syllogism that contradicting that "special nature" is a bad thing. I would also say that #6's parenthetical is assuming the argument, and the conclusion is lacking in evidence. After all, if, as you say, your desired political end-state is "is the only way that man, on earth, can thrive", what does that mean? Citizens of these United States have thrived for quite a while under a miasma of conflicting, dangerous, and sometimes outright evil codes. Ditto most of the West and, yeah, the eastern coast of China isn't doing too poorly, either. So, whole societies "thrive" under mixed-systems.

And...yes, not everyone "thrives" under capitalism. I agree that a "rising tide raises all boats", but, comparatively speaking, not everyone flourishes. It does not matter to me because I am not looking for Utopia, and capitalism is the best of all possible choices, but still, it is clear that capitalism is not the only system necessary for man to survive, or even flourish. It's just the one in which, on average, he flourishes most and develops fastest.

Post 4

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 10:56pm

Steven,

Thanks for taking the time to look over this rough & ready solution to Daniel's question.

As to your criticism, #5 is actually an enthymeme with missing (but presumed) premises. If the premises are found, then the "assumption" that contradicting human nature is a bad thing turns into a "conclusion" that contradicting our nature is a bad thing.

Do you need me to fill in the missing premises?

After all, if, as you say, your desired political end-state is "is the only way that man, on earth, can thrive", what does that mean? Citizens of these United States have thrived for quite a while under a miasma of conflicting, dangerous, and sometimes outright evil codes. Ditto most of the West and, yeah, the eastern coast of China isn't doing too poorly, either. So, whole societies "thrive" under mixed-systems.

We obviously have different understandings of what it means for a human being to thrive. What do you mean when you say that these folks "thrived?"

It appears -- and I admit that this is not generous -- that your view of thriving doesn't involve much more than surviving ... as long as you throw-in an I-Phone and some cable channels. Whether you hold it or not (and only you can answer that), that view is terribly impoverished.

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 7:57am

Thriving is contextual - and in his instance, yes the persons do thrive.... no, perhaps not optimally, but thriving is not a plateau, but instead is itself a scaling upward... surviving and not thriving is third-world mentality, in general...

Post 6

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 9:47am