Advanced training in Objectivism: Who does it well?

Joe, your refutations are spot on. I might add that the entire purpose of the interview was to be frank, candid, and colloquial in covering fresh ground. Branden initially resented this -- he wanted more time to ponder his answers to these questions, especially the political ones which he hadn't been accustomed to thinking about -- until perspective and good feedback convinced him that the interview was just fine in the context of its purpose.

He must've been anticipating the likes of Hsieh's context-dropping hysteria. Of course, demanding doctoral thesis-length answers from a live interview is the product of either disingenuousness or emotional instability, none of which should warrant much concern or attention.

Alec

Post 21

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 9:56am

Alec Mouhibian wrote:

...Hsieh's context-dropping hysteria [regarding Nathaniel Branden's answers to a live interview]. Of course, demanding doctoral thesis-length answers from a live interview is the product of either disingenuousness or emotional instability, none of which should warrant much concern or attention.

That's very interesting, Alec. Diana's criticism of NB shows her to be either disingenuous or emotionally unstable? And what advanced training in Objectivism validates, and qualifies you to make, such an evaluation, hmmm? Perhaps she's just wrong. Or perhaps she's right. But engaging in further personalities and long-distance character judgments is not helpful in dealing with the problems we face in the Objectivist movement. That in fact is how we've gotten in the mess we're in.

REB

Post 22

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 12:30pm

My problem with the posts of Joe, Robert, and Alec is that they are too often the approach of Objectivists when confronting a critic they have a strong emotional reaction against: it obviates the necessity of actually having to ***answer*** the person point by point when you simply dismiss every argument or point they make with a single phrase.

Too easy.

Too dismissive.

Do the work to actually refute her where she is wrong [Joe attempts part of this on one issue in his blog]. Or at least someone needs to, even if you don't have the patience or energy. [ And Please do -not- now respond to me by continuing the pattern of "one-liners". I.e., finding her worst single argument and refuting that alone. ]

> "engaging in further personalities and long-distance character judgments is not helpful in dealing with the problems we face in the Objectivist movement. That in fact is how we've gotten in the mess we're in." [Roger]

Exactly.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/04, 12:41pm)

Post 23

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 12:57pm

Phil,

The problem is I simply don't think she's made a convincing case against Objectivism as an open system. There is material to explore in areas such as the balance between intellectual property and free competition, the boundary between psychology and ethics, the role of evolution in human behavior, etc. In order to argue that a philosophical system is "closed", you would have to argue that it is complete and not just go through the semantic distinction of cutting it off with what Ayn Rand wrote. Given there is an objective method to Objectivism, it shouldn't matter whether something is verified by Ayn Rand or someone else.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 8/04, 2:23pm)

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 8/04, 2:26pm)

Post 24

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 2:00pm

Roger, I was specifically referring to a single rant, which Joe refuted in the link he gave. Please read it. I was referring to her apparent expectation that Branden provide a doctoral-length answer to an interview question -- and the absurd rant that that expectation led to. I was providing further background for why it was absurd. Such crazy context-dropping, by an intelligent person, is either done intentionally or because she simply goes nutsy-cuckoo when thinking of Branden. Fine, but let it be out there.

I was *not* referring to her criticims of TOC in general, which I haven't read in full and which I'm sure contain some valid points, if only by accident. What I've seen, of course, has been blatantly unimpressive. It's the Disgruntled Ex-Wife's school of criticism -- hardly the most compelling. But if she's criticized them for lack of productivity or stubborn stasis, too, then that's nothing I haven't done.

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian
on 8/04, 2:17pm)

Post 25

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 2:25pm

Returning to the original point of this thread, re: education in objectivism, let me weigh in on a couple points I consider extremely important (if only personally).

For those of us lacking sufficient time to re-create the wheel that is applied objectivism, some sort of methodical training (be it a compendium of readings, lecture courses, a full-out school, whatever) is extremely appealing because 1) if you're trying to learn, then you're not a specialist/expert already, and it's that much harder to devise your own curriculum, 2) once you learn it, you can go back and evaluate that curriculum, and comment/criticize/improve it as needed, thereby avoiding dogmatism from any particular expert and 3) it gets you to the *point* of the training, which is applying objectivist principles and methodologies in your own life, so you can get *on* with whatever else you have to do in your life. For me, this is a heckuva lot, and (without meaning to toot my own horn) is of considerable potential importance and impact for people and science in general. The role of philosophy is to correctly enable all other walks of life (personal or professional) with the correct methodology. A world full of philosophers doesn't put bread on the table, art on our walls, or more oomph in our computers.

This brings me to point two. I am an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist. Although I have a huge passion (professionally and otherwise) for philosophy and history, I will not be a professional philosopher or historian. I seek to *use* what I learn philosophically to improve evolutionary and biological theories and methods. I want tools. I want objectivist tools. I want enough of my life left over after learning objectivist principles to actually be the biologist I am, and be a heckuva good one. I aim high, as a biologist. I think objectivism can help me get there. And I think expert objectivists and professional philosophers should recognize that they too have a vested interest in helping me do what I aim to do.

Katie

Post 26

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 2:41pm

Brava to you Katie!
I sanctioned your post.
Ciao. CD

Post 27

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 3:47pm

I seek to *use* what I learn philosophically to improve evolutionary and biological theories and methods.

Hmm, I thought science itself shouldn't be biased by anything, not even Objectivism.

I also thought something opposite to the quoted statement: that more knowledge about evolutionary and biological theories and methods, or science in general, would improve one's philosophical thinking of the world.

Post 28

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 4:35pm

Hong,
Looks like we disagree there; I think science has to be based on something - specifically, I think all of science is united by a common methodology, and methodologies are based on philosophies. Also, I think being very well versed in things such as logic - which philosophy can teach you - can only help one's research. I see a lot of fellow students (and sometimes faculty members) who could well stand a big dose of philosophy. We're supposed to be thinkers, intellectual leaders in our respective fields, and too often I see a bunch of glorified technicians, blinded by the overwhelming amount of minutiae of their particular research. A kind of plug-and-chug approach to science, which bothers me. Yes, the details are terribly important, and paves a lot of the way for more research, but it's not the role I see for myself. I'm a theorist, a macro-everything-ist, and assumptions, methods, and axioms make my mouth water :o).

In a way, I think we're both right. For highly empirically driven science, yes, I think it can certainly help out philosophy. But all empirical or experimental science has core assumptions and methodologies, many of which are taken for granted, and many of which work reasonably to magnificently well. But I do think these assumptions trace down to philosophical axioms, many of which scientists would probably say "Well, duh!" to, but are worth visiting and exploring explicitly anyway. And that's where I see myself as a scientist - or should I be calling myself a philosopher of science? I don't know. My background and basis is certainly in science. In any case, I think that there's plenty to learn (and plenty of employment!) in investigating these theoretical bases of science.

Katie

PS: I grant I've said the word "science" far too many times in this one post!!

(Edited by Katherine Brakora on 8/04, 4:41pm)

Post 29

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 4:47pm

Hear, Hear Hong!

For an example of how not to do philosophy, check out OPAR page 17. Peikoff commenting on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states: "Our ignorance of certain measurements does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature."

Peikoff thinks, without having looked at any data, that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a "measurement problem". So much for the primacy of existence.

Jim

Post 30

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 5:03pm

Katherine is essentially right. Science is absolutely subject to philosophical axioms. The basic axioms of Objectivism -- existence and consciousness/identity dictate the confines under which science is conducted. These axioms cannot be proven by science because of their self evident nature, but science is fully reliant on them without question.

In addition, the results of scientific inquiry are subjected to the rules of logic and are used to form concepts which are only considered valid if they meet certain epistemological guidelines. Science does however expand knowledge and thus it expands the framework for the application of philosophy to different fields and to different contexts.

- Jason

Post 31

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 5:14pm

Jason,

What you say is right, but I wouldn't use certain epistemological frameworks as a given to predict the results of an experiment or say something about how reality "has to be". That's putting the cart before the horse.

Jim

Post 32

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 6:02pm

I suspect you agree with me, but lets make this clear. The results of a scientific experiment, to be judged and integrated properly must meet certain epistemological guidelines. Or to make it even more clear, perceptual evidence cannot be integrated into concepts without following a specific set of rules. These rules are dictated by the axioms of existence and consciousness/identity and thus confine what can be considered a valid scientific finding. So philosophy is indeed the king of all intellectual disciplines.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/04, 6:04pm)

Post 33

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 6:03pm

Jim-
You said "Peikoff thinks, without having looked at any data, that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a "measurement problem". So much for the primacy of existence."

I cant tell you how refreshing it is to find other objectivists who are incredulous at some of the pronouncements about science that the members of ARI make.

Katie-
Those are some excellent posts.

Post 34

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 6:07pm

Jason,

That's exactly correct. However certain notions of causality, space continuity and the like are derivative concepts which must be verified with respect to existence and identity.

Jim

Post 35

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 6:35pm

Jody,

As far as ARI is concerned, much of the last 85 years of science is bogus. They don't accept quantum mechanics, they distrust Einstein and have a bunch of other wacky views. One of the criteria I use for judging someone's reality orientation is how they approach subjects that are new to them. Needless to say, many in ARI just don't get it.

Jim

Post 36

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 6:51pm

Jim-
I know. I came to objectivism after first having a strong interest in science and was appalled at ARI. I thought, "I've oriented myself with a bunch of quacks."

Post 37

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 7:20pm

Hmmm...

Last time I checked, science consisted of more than physics. If anyone doubts the progress of science - biology - in the last 85 years, just open a medicine cabinet the next time someone's sick. Modern physics may be bogus; I'm in no position to judge. But one questionable branch of science shouldn't condemn it all!

For as-yet inarticulate reasons, I'm also inclined to think that biology benefits from closer ties to observable reality, or in other words, as a group biologists have paid closer attention to their experiments than the blatherings of 20th century philosophers of science. Not that I think philosophy is necessarily bad for science; quite the opposite. I just think it's been off in la-la land for the better part of a century.

Katie

(Edited by Katherine Brakora on 8/04, 7:25pm)

(Edited by Katherine Brakora on 8/04, 7:32pm)

Post 38

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 7:24pm

Katie-
Modern physics is not bogus. Besides all the other sciences have to ultimately ask the physicists if they're getting it right.

Post 39

Thursday, August 4, 2005 - 7:31pm