|Returning to the original subject of this thread: Last Saturday (November 20th), the Hsieh’s posted their “Closing Thoughts on ARI, Peikoff and McCaskey." http://blog.dianahsieh.com/ |
Here I cite a few of their remarks and add some comments of my own. They write as follows:
[G]iven ARI's position that The Logical Leap is a "major ARI project" on which they must take "one consistent position", then it makes sense that McCaskey's criticisms of the book constituted a conflict of interest incompatible with his serving on the ARI Board. . . . But later in his post, Paul writes:
As an explanation of our earlier views, I (Paul) have served on the Board of Directors of a corporation -- namely, my own medical practice. . . .
As part of [our Board’s] conflict of interest policy, board members of my practice cannot undermine or criticize major board decisions once made -- such as opening a new branch office or signing a new hospital contract. In other words, the group has a "one consistent position" policy on such major issues, much like ARI. Board members are expected to freely debate such issues as part of the process of arriving at a decision. But once the board has made its decision, individual board members are expected to support it publicly, or at least keep their disagreements private.
We were troubled that so many online arguments were premised on false factual claims -- for instance, that McCaskey published his Amazon review before resigning from ARI's Board. If McCaskey published his Amazon review after resigning from ARI’s Board, then on what basis did Peikoff object to his remaining on the Board in the first place? Was it based on Peikoff’s judgment of McCaskey as "an obnoxious braggart" and "a pretentious ignoramus”? This kind of emotionally charged insult is at best a dubious appraisal of McCaskey’s personality, which Peikoff evidently tolerated over a long period of time. It does not qualify as an accusation of immoral behavior, so how it would justify Peikoff’s suddenly coming to denounce McCaskey as unfit to remain on the Board is unclear?
In fact, the Hsieh’s disagree strongly with Peikoff’s characterization. They write,
We regard that as a serious misjudgment of McCaskey. In the seven years we've known him, McCaskey has always acted as a gentleman and a scholar. Similarly, we still regard Peikoff's earlier characterizations of McCaskey's actions and views as unfathomable. So, I still don’t see how Peikoff's actions make sense. They strike me as a bizarre and (dare I say) irrational way to treat another very close philosophical ally over a sincere and rather minor disagreement.