Gavin ([info]selfishgene) wrote,
@ 2007-12-20 16:04:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ayn Rand Cult
"Wait a minute," objects the reader, "that's not quite fair! Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957! Practically nobody knew about Bayes back then." Bah. Next you'll tell me that Ayn Rand died in 1982, and had no chance to read Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, which was published that same year.
Science isn't fair. That's sorta the point. An aspiring rationalist in 2007 starts with a huge advantage over an aspiring rationalist in 1957. It's how we know that progress has occurred.

(Post a new comment)


[info]other
2007-12-20 09:15 pm UTC (link)
The atomic theory of chemistry is pretty damned certain.

Is it fair to point out to that author that they have split the atom?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]selfishgene
2007-12-20 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Man, they even split the proton! Or did that only happen on Star Trek?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]other
2007-12-20 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Protons are made up of three quarks. The author's comment is baffling.

The other sarcastic comment I was going to make instead was, since the article was written before 1897 when J.J. Thomson discovered the electron, it isn't fair to judge them for not knowing that.

It's like those people who say that the most absolute certainty we know is that the interior angles of a triangle is 180° and seem dumbfounded when you mention non-Euclidean geometry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]madfilkentist
2007-12-20 11:37 pm UTC (link)
We know that with absolute certainty -- given a certain set of geometric underpinnings. Almost any factual statement can be made false by shoving it into a different context.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]other
2007-12-21 01:45 am UTC (link)
Yes, I agree, it is absolute as long as you add restrictions, restrains, conditions, and other antonyms of absolute. However, if you move from classical geometry to modern geometry, then it is no longer necessarily true. Geometry, like any good theory, evolves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]boffo
2007-12-20 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Excellent article!

(Reply to this)


[info]scottsch
2007-12-20 09:49 pm UTC (link)
I liked that article!

(Reply to this)


[info]ernunnos
2007-12-20 10:09 pm UTC (link)
That's beautiful.

(Reply to this)


[info]madfilkentist
2007-12-20 10:15 pm UTC (link)
Objectivism is dead as a movement, which is sad because it still has so much to offer as a philosophy. Peikoff and his crowd have descended into a black hole which emits no light. I had high hopes for the Institute for Objectivist Studies / Objectivist Center / Atlas Society, but it has little to offer these days.

What remains is the ideas which Rand assembled, which can still form the basis for future philosophy and can influence the world for the better. Sometimes it's necessary to gain the perspective that lets a person's ideas be seen apart from his personality before they can have their full effect.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]burntbythesun02
2007-12-21 06:08 am UTC (link)
Will Wilkinson, who used to work with TAS, found that even TAS-brand Oism was too dogmatic for him in his DC circles.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]technomaget
2008-04-18 04:56 pm UTC (link)
Objectivism is best represented by people like Chris Sciabarra, Rasmussen, etc. Piekoff and his gang and TAS have gone the neo-con route and have more in common with conservatives than with Rand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]selfishgene
2008-04-18 08:06 pm UTC (link)
Rand herself was conflicted on national defense issues. She hated taxes and conscription but she feared Communism would destroy America. She was not prepared to renounce the military-industrial complex because it seemed essential at that time. I think it was a misjudgment on her part, but it's easy to say that after the Soviet Union crumbled to dust. In a sense she doubted her own philosophy that evil is weak. I don't despise her for that, we all make mistakes. We should acknowledge her mistakes openly, while still admiring her accomplishments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]technomaget
2008-04-18 08:31 pm UTC (link)
She also wrote a lot about neo-fascism and the warfare and welfare state. She was also opposed to every war in the century. She wasn't entirely consistent, true, but she was much more anti-war than the current crop of most Objectivists who have identical positions to neo-conservatives.

I severed my ties with TAS because of their horrendous article on Ron Paul timed to coincide with the primaries so as to discredit him. I wrote them a nasty letter as well.

Regarding Rand's views on this, here is an excellent article if you haven't read it yet:

www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/fr56globalcrisis.pdf

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]selfishgene
2008-04-18 09:01 pm UTC (link)
I haven't been reading Sciabarra lately. I like his approach but I am less interested in formal philosophy than I was. I feel I know enough for my purposes, so I'm concentrating on the history of state power. The actual military, economic and propaganda techniques used by the power hungry are my focus.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]technomaget
2008-04-19 04:32 am UTC (link)
This article isn't about philosophy, but about what you mention above. He actually doesn't always deal with formal philosophy (he wrote a book on Libertarianism for example) and often talks about political issues like in this article. I strongly recommend it.

Your topics of interest are important because I get very frustrated by people who want change and embrace the status quo. Propoganda techniques work really well on the people. The Clintons are masters at that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…