Rand failed to deal with evolution. Why?
Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
Festinger’s Question comes from his famous 1956 book, "When Prophecy Fails." Suppose (1) an individual believes something with his whole heart and soul; (2) he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; and (3) he is then presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, evidence he himself fully accepts as true, that his first belief is wrong. Festinger’s question is: What will happen?
The answer, well documented by six decades of subsequent research, shows people respond to dissonant beliefs by using three key strategies.
First, they can ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression. We Objectivists recognize this as subjectivism, holding the primacy of consciousness to be true, instead of the primacy of existence.
Second, they can reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.
Third, they can make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization. Michael Shermer calls it “motivated reasoning.”
What Festinger did not expect, was people did not question their beliefs. Quite the opposite. Researchers were astonished to find people became stronger in their irrational beliefs after having been presented with unequivocal and undeniable evidence the subject himself fully accepted as true. For example, if they believed in the flat earth, then were presented with the undeniable evidence of the spherical planet, they became stronger in their flat earth belief.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.
This explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs, both of which are drilled into children from the time they are born.
One may easily say, “every belief should be open to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence,” but attempting to live up to that standard is difficult and takes a concentrated effort.
Which brings me to Ayn Rand.
A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa [Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet. Chapter 1, “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 28. Sorry, my copy is so old there is no ISBN. Rand also said this in the August 1970 issue of “the Objectivist” at page 3. Yes, I have the original copy I subscribed to and got in 1970.] and humans have no instincts. [Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. P. 1013. Again, my copy is pre-ISBN. Hell, even my Spanish copy is pre-ISBN.]
The Theory of Evolution holds humans are not born tabula rasa and we do have instincts. Instinctive behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism to act in a particular manner. An instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern in which a sequence of actions are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. For example, a dog shaking water from wet fur.
The role of instincts (genetically determined behaviors) in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system, the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and instincts play a lesser role.
Do humans have instincts? The answer is, in 2016, clearly yes. Humans seem to be mentally “hardwired” regarding many observable activities, such as the False Positive or False Negative responses to signs of danger such as the rustling of shrubs ahead. Is the rustling from the wind or a predator?
Humans tend to elect the false positive, which means we fear the worst, but the rustling is only the wind and we go on to make love and make babies. The species continues. Animals which selected a false negative, the ones who thought it was the wind when in truth the rustling was a predator, were lunch for the predator. They did not make love and have babies. The species ends. Natural selection.
These are dissonant cognitions. As Rand points out in Atlas, if there are two sides, at least one is wrong (both may be wrong, but one must be wrong if the positions are mutually exclusive). How did Rand resolve the problem? She refused to take sides. “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Ayn Rand Letter, Vol II, No. 17, May 21, 1973. We are talking 1973, not 1873, and Rand does not take a stand on one of the most important discoveries in history. Incredible.
In my research I did not find Rand even mentioned Darwin. I am not the first to discover this omission. Neil Parille, in his essay, “Ayn Rand and Evolution” (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...) presents an interesting explanation of why.
As time went on Rand and her lap dog Peikoff seemed driven more deeply into her tabula rasa and lack of instincts beliefs. This comports with the findings of Festinger. I think she was smart enough to know better but was unable to cope with the evidence due to cognitive dissonance.
This leaves Rand as (1) an individual who believes something with her whole heart and soul; (2) has taken irrevocable actions because of it by publishing her thoughts to the world and her followers; and (3) refused to even examine evidence to the contrary.
What would possibly drive Rand to ignore the theory of evolution, which was the most culturally changing theory in history, placing science before religion and illustrating religion’s claims for creationism to ring hollow?
Did she (1) say I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true; (2) reduce the importance of the conflicting belief and say “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider; or (3) try to make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict; or (4) what?
To me, Rand selected door number 2: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” In doing so, she reneged on a fundamental principle of her own philosophy: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of realty.” Atlas, at pages 1016-1017.
Here us the question I ask the Gulch: In failing to deal with evolution, did Rand abdicate her mind and evict herself from the realm of reality? Or, is there some other explanation for her omission?
The answer, well documented by six decades of subsequent research, shows people respond to dissonant beliefs by using three key strategies.
First, they can ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression. We Objectivists recognize this as subjectivism, holding the primacy of consciousness to be true, instead of the primacy of existence.
Second, they can reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.
Third, they can make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization. Michael Shermer calls it “motivated reasoning.”
What Festinger did not expect, was people did not question their beliefs. Quite the opposite. Researchers were astonished to find people became stronger in their irrational beliefs after having been presented with unequivocal and undeniable evidence the subject himself fully accepted as true. For example, if they believed in the flat earth, then were presented with the undeniable evidence of the spherical planet, they became stronger in their flat earth belief.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.
This explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs, both of which are drilled into children from the time they are born.
One may easily say, “every belief should be open to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence,” but attempting to live up to that standard is difficult and takes a concentrated effort.
Which brings me to Ayn Rand.
A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa [Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet. Chapter 1, “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 28. Sorry, my copy is so old there is no ISBN. Rand also said this in the August 1970 issue of “the Objectivist” at page 3. Yes, I have the original copy I subscribed to and got in 1970.] and humans have no instincts. [Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. P. 1013. Again, my copy is pre-ISBN. Hell, even my Spanish copy is pre-ISBN.]
The Theory of Evolution holds humans are not born tabula rasa and we do have instincts. Instinctive behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism to act in a particular manner. An instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern in which a sequence of actions are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. For example, a dog shaking water from wet fur.
The role of instincts (genetically determined behaviors) in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system, the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and instincts play a lesser role.
Do humans have instincts? The answer is, in 2016, clearly yes. Humans seem to be mentally “hardwired” regarding many observable activities, such as the False Positive or False Negative responses to signs of danger such as the rustling of shrubs ahead. Is the rustling from the wind or a predator?
Humans tend to elect the false positive, which means we fear the worst, but the rustling is only the wind and we go on to make love and make babies. The species continues. Animals which selected a false negative, the ones who thought it was the wind when in truth the rustling was a predator, were lunch for the predator. They did not make love and have babies. The species ends. Natural selection.
These are dissonant cognitions. As Rand points out in Atlas, if there are two sides, at least one is wrong (both may be wrong, but one must be wrong if the positions are mutually exclusive). How did Rand resolve the problem? She refused to take sides. “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Ayn Rand Letter, Vol II, No. 17, May 21, 1973. We are talking 1973, not 1873, and Rand does not take a stand on one of the most important discoveries in history. Incredible.
In my research I did not find Rand even mentioned Darwin. I am not the first to discover this omission. Neil Parille, in his essay, “Ayn Rand and Evolution” (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...) presents an interesting explanation of why.
As time went on Rand and her lap dog Peikoff seemed driven more deeply into her tabula rasa and lack of instincts beliefs. This comports with the findings of Festinger. I think she was smart enough to know better but was unable to cope with the evidence due to cognitive dissonance.
This leaves Rand as (1) an individual who believes something with her whole heart and soul; (2) has taken irrevocable actions because of it by publishing her thoughts to the world and her followers; and (3) refused to even examine evidence to the contrary.
What would possibly drive Rand to ignore the theory of evolution, which was the most culturally changing theory in history, placing science before religion and illustrating religion’s claims for creationism to ring hollow?
Did she (1) say I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true; (2) reduce the importance of the conflicting belief and say “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider; or (3) try to make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict; or (4) what?
To me, Rand selected door number 2: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” In doing so, she reneged on a fundamental principle of her own philosophy: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of realty.” Atlas, at pages 1016-1017.
Here us the question I ask the Gulch: In failing to deal with evolution, did Rand abdicate her mind and evict herself from the realm of reality? Or, is there some other explanation for her omission?
I'm not sure why you would assume that she should, or why you find fault with her for not doing so.
"Tabula rasa" means born without ideas, i.e., cognitive content, not a dog instinctually shaking water off.
Esceptico "finds" fault in Ayn Rand for the same reason he gratuitously smears Leonard Peikoff as a "lap dog" and seriously questions if she "abdicated her mind and evicted herself from the realm of reality." His snide posts attacking Ayn Rand and Objectivism are characteristic of him.
To Rand, the developments put forth by the Enlightenment and Aristotle were of more importance in her development of her Philosophy of Objectivism than was Darwin's work and particularly the petty squabbles of religionists and scientists.
As to your arguments and terminology used in them, you seem to want to toss instincts, beliefs, and cognitive dissonance into the mixture as if those have anything to do with Rand. Rand argued against beliefs as nothing more than pretend knowledge gained through faith or revelation. She saw instinctual reaction as something to be recognized and analyzed by the reasoning mind to be weighed against rationally obtained facts and knowledge before acting. And cognitive dissonance was simply the result of attempts by the mind to resolve contradictions in ways that avoid the reexamination of premises.
I fail to see anything in your Post or replies that should cause any concerns about Rand or the integrity of her thinking and development of her philosophy. I just don't understand your viewpoint as being serious or worthy of much thought.
Ayn Rand offered an incredible and rational vision, but she made errors. In this pursuit advancing Objectivism I point out items to change, eliminate, modify, add to or amplify. Unfortunately, for the majority of Randians I am attacked as “anti-Rand” and learned for those Randians the idea to even question what Rand said is to challenge god and they allege I am immoral for doing so. So be it.
The Bible contains many contradictory passages. If one argues the Bible holds a particular position, it’s very easy for those who disagree to quote a conflicting verse. The works of Ayn Rand are not entirely different. One could quote passages in “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” contradict other messages contained in those books.
If Objectivism is to advance, these conflicts must be corrected. To do so is not anti-Rand.
Your arguments seem to include definitions of words such as belief that are in opposition to or slightly twisted from the definitions and context accepted in common by Objectivist. True, those definitions were provided by Rand, but without those definitions, discussion of her ideas and philosophical developments are impossible. Your approach to this Posting and commentary is at best Sophist, either intentionally (which I suspect) or Sophomoric. It strikes me that you have approached your studies and readings of Rand's works as a critic searching for any minor or major discrepancy with which to argue that the Queen has no clothes, not to advance Objectivism, but to bring Rand down to your level.
Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you're not going to be the one that does that. And I seriously doubt that you can ever accept that.
Why you, and so many here in the Gulch, engage in ad hominem attacks (not only against me but against others) escapes my understanding. But, so be it. I question what your goal might be in making the statements as you phrase them. If your goal is to change the mind of a reader, then I think the style is misplaced.
If your goal is to convince a person of another orientation, then attacking the person you want to change is not likely to lead your objective. I suspect you know this, and I can dismiss it as the motive of your comment.
If you feel better by putting other people down with bromides and pontificating, then I suggest you place a lot of mirrors in your house and run from one to the other reciting your slogans. You may wish to video them. But do not pretend to yourself the exact nature of your motives and goal.
If, however, you genuinely want to communicate, and not play a role of being the heroic, right-thinking, all-knowing seer without whose words others will wither, suffer and die, then you must end role playing and posturing. Treat people as equal humans and enter into discourse.
As Eric Hoffer said: “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” You sound dogmatic to me.
As Ayn Rand said: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
As for beliefs, there are beliefs where one has evidence or valid proof for them and there are other beliefs which are believed for some reason other than evidence or valid proof. I do not recall Rand writing anything about beliefs not including true beliefs..
Like everyone who is not mentally impaired, Rand had emotions driving her personal life, both good and bad. One does not act other than by reflex without an emoting influence which causes action or can be inhibited consciously. Emotions increase in intensity as they are acted upon and decrease in intensity as they are inhibited. I doubt that Rand was perfect in her emotions being only rational.
You have have probably seen this article:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...
As for instincts, I see rand as believing that humans do not have instincts to just mean that humans are born tabula rasa. Whether they have any instinctual actions which are from inborn knowledge would be hard to prove as it is sometimes hard to do in other animals. There can be inborn complex activities which would not be considered knowledge since knowledge implies consciousness.
Let me take the liberty to restate your paragraph. As for instincts, I see Rand as believing that humans do not have instincts to just mean that humans are born without conceptual knowledge, and in that limited sense tabula rasa. They have inborn instinctual actions, such as for nursing, but no formed concepts. These inborn complex activities which would not be considered knowledge since knowledge implies consciousness.
I would disagree a bit here. Depends upon how you define knowledge. Knowledge is a kind of a wide ranging concept. It deals with everything from percepts to concepts and maybe even to the level of sensations, usually in a fully functioning brain in animals. Instincts deal with everything from inborn complex behavior to built in basic means of knowing. Inborn nursing activity does not require any kind of knowing at all. Same for salmon activity of returning to the original spawning stream. I was watching the DC eagle cameras to see how the eaglets behaved with respect to the nest. When chicks they just lay around with feeding reflex operating their bills when the parents returned with fish. After several weeks with the parents having repairing the nest by replacing sticks, the eaglets started moving out of place sticks out of the way after finding that it would not work if being stood upon. Such a way of behaving may be complex but is more like patterning after others like young humans do without any innate knowledge.
The discussions on instincts usually deal with inborn knowledge and not with built in complex biological action sequencing or complex reflex strings of action or even in non humans of nest building, etc. There is no other knowledge than perceptual and conceptual knowledge. Perhaps memories can be considered as driving some kind of instinctual activity.
In fact, it is the concept of consciousness that makes the concept of instinct possible, since the concept of knowledge presupposes the concept of consciousness and the concept of instinct presupposes the concept of knowledge since without concept of knowledge there would no way to make a sub-concept of a different type of knowledge as of instinct. Instinct cannot be a type of complex reflex actions since reflexes are non-conscious actions. So by definition, instincts are closely related to some kind of knowledge and cannot be built in at birth other than as some kind of tabula rasa potential devices for complex actions but that seems to be just what a human animal and other animals seem to be.
Your style of writing unmistakably conveys a desire to attack what you perceive as a cult of Ayn Rand, whether you truly intend it or not. Your denials, to my ears, sound insincere.
As to the cult of Rand, I think any dogmatic group is a cult by the very definition of cult. Shermer did a chapter in his book "Why People Believe Weid Things" analyizing what we would call "closed" Objectivism. It is to that I was referring.
Not long ago I took a course in communication. One of the things I learned was whenever you say something, if there is any possible way for another to misunderstand what you say, you will be misunderstood in the worst possible way, at the worst possible time, and then they will tell you what you “really” meant by your message. The reason is other people attach their meanings to your words. I believe this is the case here.
81 years of my life consistently disproves that statement. My hunch is that you are relatively poor "listener", i.e. reader of disagreeing ideas and I definitely think that whoever was your teacher in that course did a very bad job of teaching, communications of all things!!
Good bye. I had enough.
This is a different definition of instinct than Rand used.
"An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life" Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 121
The premise of your argument is flawed.
“Suppose (1) an individual believes something with his whole heart and soul; (2) he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; and (3) he is then presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, evidence he himself fully accepts as true, that his first belief is wrong.”
(1) What, exactly, did Ayn Rand “believe with her whole heart and soul”? Tabula rasa and lack of instincts? Tabula rasa, as portrayed by Rand, refers to a person at birth possessing consciousness and a cognitive mechanism, but lacking content. Ayn Rand never denied that the human body has automatic processes, but these are not the same as “instincts” in the way Objectivists typically use the term. The Ayn Rand Lexicon defines instincts as “an unerring and automatic form of knowledge.”
(2) What “irrevocable” actions did Ayn Rand take? Writing and publishing something is not irrevocable. A person can always amend something she wrote or said earlier, in light of additional knowledge. Ayn Rand never considered errors of knowledge to be moral failures.
(3) What evidence was presented to Ayn Rand that her belief (tabula rasa and human lack of instincts) was wrong? Evolution has nothing to say on either subject. One can argue the merits of Ayn Rand’s belief as applied to the human beings of today, but neither the presence nor the absence of instincts or tabula rasa are evidence of whether or not humans and other life forms evolved.
To sum up, I don’t think you have made a case that, on the subject of evolution, Ayn Rand abdicated her mind and evicted herself from the realm of reality. As for why she did not discuss the subject, there could be any number of explanations, but there is no way to know for sure.
Point 3: I disagree. From an evolutionary point of view what makes us unique is that goals (ethics) is not hardwired and our knowledge is also not hardwired. This is a huge evolutionary experiment, but it is what makes Humans so different. I discussed this in detail at Atlas Summit and the link to following post also explains this https://hallingblog.com/2016/02/29/ec...
(2) Technically you are correct. Psychologically, once a person has committed himself, as did Rand, to a specific belief as strongly as Rand did, then it becomes irrevocable in their minds. While Rand never considered errors to be moral failures, she did consider disagreeing with her conclusions as moral failures. This is one of the “cult” features of the Randian Objectivism.
(3) Sorry, but I am not clear as to what you are saying. Sometimes I am a bit slow. Evolution does deal with instincts and tabula rasa and while “neither the presence nor the absence of instincts or tabula rasa are evidence of whether or not humans and other life forms evolved” that is not the point. Evolution is accepted as a scientific fact. Instincts and tabula rasa are a part of understanding the theory of evolution, just as air flow is part of understanding the theory of aerodynamics.
(2) RE: “Psychologically, once a person has committed himself, as did Rand, to a specific belief as strongly as Rand did, then it becomes irrevocable in their minds.” This theory may be well supported, but it does not necessarily apply to everyone and it differs in degree across individual cases. There is no way you can know Rand’s state of mind or mental processes before, during or after she formed her beliefs. There is no way you can know whether she even brought up in her own mind the issue of instincts and tabula rasa in relation to the theory of evolution, much less that she abdicated her mind and evicted herself from the realm of reality in regard to this issue.
(3) Evolution is accepted as scientific fact, but it is perfectly explainable without reference to instincts or tabula rasa. Even creationists can agree (or disagree) about the presence or absense of instincts and tabula rasa without disturbing their religious beliefs.
(2) You are correct I cannot know the state of mind of Rand. I am looking at the objective manifestations of subjective intent: her writings.
(3) I think my point was not clear enough, but evidently you are missing it. I did not say one needs instincts or tabula rasa to explain evolution. What I did say is: “A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa.” This statement by Rand is in error. I did say Rand claimed: “humans have no instincts.” Here, again, I think Rand is in error.
My conclusion from Rand’s writings is she, as are we all, was faced with two cognitions which were mutually exclusive and she chose to handle the dissonance by, as I said above reducing “the importance of the conflicting belief and say ‘I’ll think about it tomorrow,’ meaning I have more important things to consider.”
The primary definition of "Believe" is::
" verb (used without object), believed, believing. 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: "
While this definition may describe a mental process that has survival value it cannot be described as objectively rational. However, To believe that all tigers are man eaters may not be true but failing to let this belief determine your behavior could cost you your life.
We are hard wired to allow such concepts to over rule careful analysis for the simple reason that time is of the essence when it comes to avoid being eaten. This "belief" structure is an example of inherited hard wired behavior.
The difficulty lies in the fact that to "believe" in evolution is fundamentally irrational while understanding the principals of evolution is part of our understanding of the relationship between our models and underlying reality.
It is quite possible that Rand realized that she did not have a level of understanding of the principals of evolution that were sufficient for her to make decisions or evaluations that were logically consistent.Our current understanding of evolution is described by an extraordinarily complex set of both static and dynamic models that go far beyond Darwin's observations. As such these models form a set of testable criteria that are consistent with observation. However, for a layperson to pretend to understand these models in depth and to base moral judgement upon that understanding would be intellectually dishonest. Ayn Rand made every effort to be as intellectually honest as possible.
You confuse me when you say: “The difficulty lies in the fact that to ‘believe’ in evolution is fundamentally irrational...” I say exactly the opposite, to believe, that is to accept as true, the theory of evolution is fundamentally rational.
As to her honesty, as Branden put it: “It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people’s model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of “the irrational”—and that was a place we were all naturally eager to avoid.”
Your use of “moral judgment” on the subject of the validity of evolution is interesting. No matter which side of the argument one might find himself, it is sure as hell not a moral judgment. One of the great defects of Rand, to me at any rate, was if you disagreed with her you were immoral. I wonder how many thousands of people she drove from Objectivism with this single edict.
This is the "closed" philosophy issue as a system logically derived from axioms is complete and many want to change some part but run into the logic. of where to change. I was there when Peikoff explained why he had to change Rands order of the axioms to complete the logical derivation of Objectivism. Binswanger in How We Know spends a great deal of time on the role of axioms in deriving the terms of the philosophy.
I can understand it does not affect the development of philosophy. But if she knew enough to claim she understood evolution, then why would she say she would not take a position? This refusal baffles me. She sure wrote enough about politicians during that time period.
Personally I have never met any non-scientist who understands evolution as it is far broader than Darwin's natural selection as a means of speciation. Read Robert E. Ulanowicz on "The Third Window" to get a broader perspective on evolution. Remember Darwin did not answer why life or evolution only the formation of species in the Origin.
To me this sounds as if Branden was as shocked as I am to find her taking the 5th Amendment regarding evolution and sounds to me she did not claim lack of knowledge, she simply could not confront the issue. Again, this goes back to Option #2: evasion.
As for instinct: I am diabetic. My instinct is to eat lots of sugar. My reason tells me that's really bad thus promoting my continued life as a rational being. As animals we inherited lots of stuff from our ancestors (there's that evolution thing again), not all of it good. Not all of it relevant to life as a rational being. We may have instincts but they are not what define us as human.
Knowledge is the acquired content of consciousness after birth, the higher function of cognition that eventually becomes free will and the ability to reason. The brain arrives with an operating system, if you will, with which to process the sense data from the environment into which a baby is born. The operating system is the blank slate, the empty folder which receives the input and arranges the received data to form concepts and mirror the outside reality.
Another way I describe this function is that the received data consists of "memes" that become part of the human software. Integrating received knowledge without contradiction is the essence of Objectivist psycho-epistemology.
Perhaps Rand did not use the word "instincts" in the way we receive the word and it is a pity she did not elaborate more on that, but what she sid make clear is she believed humans do not have instincts. If she meant something else, I missed it.
As I mentioned before here, whenever you say something, if there is any possible way for another to misunderstand what you say, you will be misunderstood in the worst possible way, at the worst possible time, and then they will tell you what you “really” meant by your message. All this happens because the listening people attach their own meanings to your words.
There has never been a non-faith-based idea to compete with evolution. Rand's comment on the specifics would have been redundant.
As Branden put it: “It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people’s model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers.”
You are the only one attempting to contradict her (and failing spectacularly). In desparation you even resorted here to an irrelevant quote from her jilted lover (unless you are suggesting Branden was referring here to her ideas on evolution! I don't think so)
My point in all this, as I have said here, is Ayn Rand offered an incredible and rational vision, but she made errors. In this pursuit advancing Objectivism I (and others) point out items to change, eliminate, modify, add to or amplify. Unfortunately, the majority of Randians attack me as “anti-Rand” and I learned for those Randians the idea to even question what Rand said is to challenge god and they allege I am immoral for doing so. So be it.
The Bible contains many contradictory passages. If one argues the Bible holds a particular position, it’s very easy for those who disagree to quote a conflicting verse. The works of Ayn Rand are not entirely different. One could quote passages in “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” contradict other messages contained in those books.
If Objectivism is to advance, I believe these conflicts must be corrected. To do so is not anti-Rand.
You say "she made errors", yet you are focused here on the fact that she DID NOT WRITE anything on a subject which was out of her field and she was not interested in. If you are trying to classify that as an "error", you are mistaken, but I think you are realizing that by now.
I would not care if you are anti-Rand, but you are definitely not "advancing Objectivism" by using irrational arguments.
Why you, and so many here in the Gulch, engage in ad hominem attacks (not only against me but against others) escapes my understanding. But, so be it. I question what your goal might be in making the statements as you phrase them. If your goal is to change the mind of a reader, then I think the style is misplaced.
If your goal is to convince a person of another orientation, then attacking the person you want to change is not likely to lead your objective. I suspect you know this, and I can dismiss it as the motive of your comment.
If you feel better by putting other people down with bromides and pontificating, then I suggest you place a lot of mirrors in your house and run from one to the other reciting your slogans. You may wish to video them. But do not pretend to yourself the exact nature of your motives and goal.
If, however, you genuinely want to communicate, and not play a role of being the heroic, right-thinking, all-knowing seer without whose words others will wither, suffer and die, then you must end role playing and posturing. Treat people as equal humans and enter into discourse.
You also trying to place yourself as the victim of an ad hominem attack, after I explained only how your ARGUMENTS were irrational. That is NOT an ad hominem. I'm sure your use of standard formulaic troll comments is pure coincidence as well. (BTW to call you a troll WOULD have been ad hominem)
This post taught me something Wiio was right. Osmo A. Wiio, a Finnish professor of communication, developed communication “laws” which I have found to be true:
(1) Communication usually fails, except by accident.
(2) If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes damage.
(3) There is always someone who knows better than you what you meant by your message.
I will restate his laws, borrowing from Murphy: Whenever you say something, if there is any possible way for another to misunderstand what you say, you will be misunderstood in the worst possible way, at the worst possible time, and then they will tell you what you “really” meant by your message.
Disagreeing with one’s views is not the same as being against the people that hold those views. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books and beliefs don't and are not due the same respect. Books and beliefs are to be challenged and examined.
Once the forms of civility are violated by the discussion participants by resorting to name-calling, little remains of hope to return to kindness or decency. The ad hominem attacks upon me were impolite, but consistent with the dogmatic attacks I have received previously in the Gulch and illustrate why Objectivism works to exclude others rather than teach. Objectivism is failing to attract people. Rand was almost proud of that. I am not. Objectivist dogs need to wag more, bark less.
I don't usually engage in too much back-and-forth blogging, since this rarely results in more light than heat. Certainly true here.
Whether or not you are a fan of the professional relationship between Rand and Peikoff, it is statements like these that immediately tip off O's to someone who is perhaps not fully stating his own beliefs regarding Objectivism. Discussion is great. but Objectivists can get ""lapdog Peikoff" out there, everyday, any day. You undermined your own discussion before it began.
“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, “Concepts of Consciousness,” page 35. This definition comports with generally accepted definitions, one of which Rand quotes: "All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man's knowledge has a foundation in fact; if they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man's knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination." (Edward C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, & Dewey, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 27.)
I often say in engineering that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is an accident, not a good design practice. The same is true here. One could argue that being lucky is better than being good, but that colloquialism doesn't hold in the the long run. Knowledge comes from facts, logic and reason. A hypothesis can come from a belief, and a belief can turn out to be specifically true, but a belief can never be knowledge until reasoned out.
None of these represent knowledge, but until logic drives down the the details, they would represent "true" beliefs.
No one knows everything, and everyone must make decisions on less than complete data (sorry physicists the world is about engineering (intended to precipitate entertaining dialog)). Setting aside a unknown for a belief or hypothesis is a requirement of daily life. However, beliefs are never knowledge. They are like remembering where the furniture is as you fumble in the dark.
The variable you might have been ignoring...the size of my wine glasses. Mine were nine ounces. A "standard" margarita is 1.7 drinks (another assumption), compared to a 6 oz wine glass. Even though mine were 1.5, you were still ahead. Until I had two more little 6 ounce-ers on the plane!
I am off to the movies to see "Hillary's America" (though I must say I usually can't stand D'Souza) and just watched "Clinton Cash" at http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash... both of which will probably make me want to spend more time South.
That said, Festinger was right that the correct response to his hypothetical is to rationally re-evaluate all the beliefs that you have derived from the overturned one.
Neanderthals and homo sapiens did have a common ancestor, which, as with the banana, gives us genes in common. By the way, we did not come from bananas, either.
When Creationists ask me who was the first human, I point out to them there wasn’t one and then explain evolution at a more basic level.
If you study species how do they start at two members of the species on the first mutation?
I do not understand why one of the crucial issues separating faith from reason is creation versus evolution, a person who championed the mind would refuse to take a position. I don’t think Rand was dishonest (though I would not rule that out due to lack of evidence), but I do think she was faced with an issue of cognitive dissonance and she should to disregard the conflicting evidence by saying she would think about it later: evasion. She was very much against evasion of thinking. As she said in Galt’s speech: “In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think.’” She talked about relative trivia, such as politicians during elections, but never mentioned Darwin or evolution. I can only wonder why and will never know for sure.
Ayn Rand named her system Objectivism, virtually a proprietary trademark. Yet she also stated that she did not have an exclusive monopoly on truth, that truth belonged to all who came to it of their own mental effort. After her death, when no new authentic material could be added to her opus, those who had been "students" and had internalized the full philosophy began to declare themselves graduated to full stature as complete Objectivists. If this is objectionable to the keepers of the estate, they are wrangling over her legacy and its monetizable assets.
This, too, is a product of evolution--the evolution of ideas and a form of tribal heritage. In the final analysis, if you are a rational, ethical human, you are a practicing Objectivist whether you have even ever heard of it or define yourself as such or not.
It is in the nature of memes (idea software) to take on a life of their own and to defend themselves and to attack deviations. If people could only understand that such is the source of all conflicts, we could finally evolve to a stage of peaceful co-existence, constructive cooperation for mutual benefit, individual freedom, and unhampered creative productivity.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the slavish adherents. Or was it Ayn Rand herself who called you names?
nounce upon evolution. She said, as I recall, "I have read a lot of evidence to support it, and, at
present, it is the only scientific theory in the field."
As a philosopher, there was no need for her to deal with it. She was dealing with man as he
already exists; she was denying, for valid reas-
ons, his having come from some supernatural
Being. Her philosophy was "for living on earth",
not investigating obscure evidence as to his or-
igin.
How much better for her to behave on the
matter as she did, then for her to pontificate on
it, and come up with wild theories!--The evolu-
tionary argument has already been presented.
There was no need for her to try to do the histor-
ians' or biologists' job for them.
present, it is the only scientific theory in the field." Can you give me a citation to it? Thank you.
Objectivist Forum"; there was later a periodical
"The Intellectual Activist" (one was supposed to bephilosophical, the other a sort of warning about political measures coming up, but "The Objectivist Forum" quit publishing, and so "The Intellectual Activist" sort of took over its func-
tion). Anyway, as I remember, the remark came
from a speech Ayn Rand gave. But, I'm sorry,
I don't remember the name of the article. I think
she may have been talking about education in
the public schools. And that may be the article
in which she said that, with people reaching
sexual development earlier, and some people not wanting sex education taught in the schools,
it was as if they were trying to create "sexual
disasters". But I am not certain that it was the
same article.
I do not understand your reference to “many contradictions, conflations of arguments and back handed swings.” If find your comment offensive, yet consistent with too many participants here at the Gulch who view any question of anything done by Rand to be treason to some sort of unstated, dogmatic, allegiance to anything she said or did.
Then you go on to say “All of these are evidenced easily in the comments where you have particularly lost points.” The idea was not to "win" points or anything else. The purpose was to examine what is, to me, one failing by Rand.
As to insight, I did gain insight from some of the participants who were interested in discussing the subject as distinct from protecting an idol. Read the entire blog and you may find the insights as well. In this regard, I accomplished my purpose. The cost was too much time spent with too many people in an adversarial context of dogmatists and too few people who had an intellectual curiosity as to the question. So much for “open” Objectivism in the Gulch. I found this experience to be, with few exceptions, as closed as ARI. Which is to say, the emotional reactions uniformly along the line if Rand said “it,” then “it is true; if Rand did not say “it,” then “it” is false and to question the Prophet is to seek death.
There is no such thing as Human rights that include any entitlement to respect or anything else. Respect must be earned. That's progressive socialism think.
The content of your Post criticizing Rand and your defense of that content has not earned my respect and you and I are in no way equal humans nor equal anything else. While I'm sure that Rand was a human being and made many if not all of the mistakes that human beings make, as a script writer, an author, and a philosopher--she had few if any equals. While you on the other hand attempt to belittle her by attacking her for not doing something that you think she should have done in order to satisfy your asinine and sophist determination of what the developer and describer of a philosophy must do, from whatever lofty perch you imagine yourself on.
If you have determined from my written comments and replies to you on this post, a lack of respect and an assertive communication style that you feel (OhOhOh) doesn't recognize you as an equal---you're certainly perceptive at least.
I don't tabula rasa means or was ever meant to mean completely blank slate with no mental content at all. Clearly even without evolution every baby is born with powerful build in programming allowing phenomenal learning and growth intelligence about the world. Clearly every human being has certain drives and general psychological parameters in common.
But this does not matter imho to what was meant by Rand about tabula rasa and "self made soul". It is not the given common aspects of being human that were of importance to her but that which each individual human chooses to do within their human context and the radical importance of the each individual living their life as fully as possible as the best they can become by their own determination of what they value and deep honesty.
Weak homage to MichealAarethun: Something about Man's Lego's is quite different, significantly so, than everything else on this planet.
The path was long and arduous and you can't afford the book anyway.
Step One
Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution
by Keith Lockitch | March 18, 2008
Share
The theory of evolution is often disparaged by its opponents as being “just a theory” — i.e., a speculative hypothesis with little basis in hard, scientific facts. But this claim carries with it the implied accusation that Charles Darwin was “just a theorist” — i.e., that he was merely an armchair scientist and that his life’s work was nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary speculation. A look at Darwin’s pioneering discoveries, however, reveals the grave injustice of this accusation. Darwin was not “just a theorist” and evolution is not “just a theory.” In this talk, Dr. Lockitch explores Darwin’s life and work, focusing on the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection. (Recorded March 18, 2008.)
Which leads us to the Natural Selection in this case 'man' nor humankind.
Animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background and man survives by adjusting his background. FNI" 10 PB 15.
Step Two see page 272 Lexicon last three paragraphs.
Find volitional consciousness, volitional choice and "an instinct of self preservation is precisely what man does not possess....and the rest in the last para on that page not ignoring the whole paragraph and continue for the next page or three.
Works for me animals have instincts and humans have the ability to think and reason but also the choice to do so or not. As they do tht their basic fund of knowledge, skills, experience expands and enlarges as does the abilty to learn assuming they make that choice. Those that do survive and prosper naturally and continue to do so generationally.
Ergo Sum the human path to Evolution is by reasoning and thinking. the rest of the animals kindom bilogically speaking do not.
Step Three
However per Law Number Two the testing requried of any observation and it's nature is continuous as more is discovered of the nature of things and life itself more testing to answer the question 'is it useful' is required. thus to Law Three and all because of Law One.
Step Four initial conclusion and possible explanation.
There was no omission and your premise is indeed flawed.
Step Five.
Why didn't she not mention it more directly. I submit 'time' was a factor. But when you have produced one percent of what Rand produced in your life time you might possibly more likely probably will have failed in any number of subject areas. Basic research being one that comes readily to mind. (Total time using the same resources 37 minues 20 looking and the rest thinking about it.)
Step Six Completing the research
Tabula rasa refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Wikipedia
I first assumed it was either or both of a. a subject not immediately important or b. a subject already covered in anohter way using other words. That seemed logical given the the triple linguistic ability of AR. The Lexicon and a simiple google search 'Ayn Rand on Evolution.' provided the clues and the pathways that eventually in a few minutes led to the cites and sources provided. Applying Law Two assiduously and completely it may not be the whole answer but was enough to show the premise was false.
How to phrase the question differently?
Initial obvsercation: Ayn Rand never addressed evolution. Questions True or not True. Why? Given the nature of AR it seemed implausible but that would be subjective and not answer nor serve. But my goal was an initial answer and perhaps more can be discovered by our more learned members. I have to desist and go shopping. Out of grapefruit and that will never do.
Enjoyable exercise. I 'feel' like I may be getting the hang of this
You underestimate Locke. His evidence is persuasive and has been since 1690.Locke was a Doctor and studied with Thomas Willis who in 1663 with Locke's two best friends, Richard Lower and Sir Christopher Wren conducted the first anatomically accurate dissection of the brain. Locke saw there is no way into the brain except by experience. Willis' book "Cerebral Anatomy" was the standard text for 200 years. Locke saw there is no way to put information into the brain until the neural connection to the senses are active hence there is no possiblity innate ideas. His politics followed from his observation of the brain. Each person is tabula rasa and sovereign hence must be free to build the content of the minds and select the actions of their bodies for their survival and to flourish. AS one who has been in the field for 60 years I can tell you we have learned not one thing to contradict Locke in essence. Darwin and Newton are very limited as they cannot explain life so good luck as you come up the ladder of knowledge.
Also evolution of species from earlier species is established fact.
But, that didn't deter me from all the brilliant illumination I got from Rand on other topics. To me, very few come even close.
Because we can't say positively, logically or objectively...we keep it under raps until the facts or at least a plausible theory is found; and the best way to do that is to just look at what is there.
Note: the fittest doesn't always survive or at least our impression of fitness...sometimes, I would imagine, the weaker survive cause everyone else is fighting it out or needs more resources than is available. Good example would be the Nephilim and the dinosaurs.
The only dinosaur to survive to date is our very own Allosaur.
False. There are dinosaurs all around you, every day. In fact, there are more species of dinosaurs alive today than mammals.
We call them birds.
A is A.
Darn...seems to do that from time to time...among other things, I study the fringes too...open mindedly of course...not ready to jump on anyone's bandwagon yet...maybe never.
PS. you haven't accounted for the past mass extinctions...and not all were due to asteroids or meteor's.
Still, science is by nature tentative. If you would like to win a Nobel prize, produce such a dramatic change in our understanding of every facet of modern biology, and your name will assuredly ring bells in Stockholm.
And can you describe what past mass extinctions have to do with the dinosaur-bird lineage? Please be specific.
One of the interesting explanations is why 'design' versus 'random chance' in the metaphysical sense is a false alternative.
Another is how discoveries in genetics go far beyond what Darwin knew in support of his theory.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/tra...
We still have to account for the Book of Enoch.
So much of OT history was accurate - events- not their interpretation...to understand that, study Julian Jaynes. There is a big difference between, events, interpretations, and a pagan organization of it all that ended up holding the human species back for their own self interested purposes.
Here is an interesting thing I ran across recently...the earths rotation was fasted than today back a few billion years ago. Also interesting to note also is that in the last 5 or more years scientist have observed the rotation of Venus has sped up and Venus came into our solar system recently, maybe around the flood, which accounts for the Egyptian and Mayan pictographs.
It pays to be open minded about these things...there is nothing to fear here.
Guess you gota die before your taken seriously.
The OT is simply history recounted by the people of the time.
Cognitive dissonance?...like the other discussion recently posted...I avoid most of that by thinking I am the dumbest among us and trying to prove myself wrong. A good percentage of the time my vision usually prevails but I rarely will wear it on my sleeve. Either way...it's not easy.
Moving on, I certainly think you are wrong when you say “Reality is how humans perceive it” because this is the non-objective primacy of consciousness concept. Rand, and I, hold the primacy of existence is true.
I agree with you that science and evolution to not weaken Rand’s thoughts. That was not my question. My question is why was she so evasive about a subject that is so important?
I agree with part of your conclusion, “her so called ‘omission’ of evolution is she ... simply brushed it aside,” but I disagree the theory of evolution “has no impact on us.” One does not have to look far to see how much creationism / evolution underlies so much dissension between atheists (of which Objectivists are one group) and theists.
In this, I own, Rand was correct. But: having rejected orthodox evolution, she had no alternative consistent with her basic premise. Hence she ignored the question.
Ayn Rand did not "seek" to set human beings apart from animals. She observed, along with Aristotle, that man is the rational animal, i.e., one kind of animal, distinguished by the essence of his rational, conceptual faculty. Evolution does not say we are "no better than animals" -- by what standard? Both evolution and Ayn Rand recognize that different species have different abilities and strengths. Ayn Rand explained in what way humans are the highest form of animal. She did not reject "orthodox evolution" and did not ignore the question. She stuck to philosophy and did not speculate about sciences with philosophic Rationalism.
"At fifteen, I became an evolutionist. And then it all became clear to me: we came from mud! And after three point eight billion years of evolution, at the core, we're still mud. No one can be a divorce lawyer and not believe that." -- Actor Danny DeVito in The War of the Roses (dir. Danny DeVito; with Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, Danny DeVito, G. D. Spradlin, et al.; Twentieth-century/Fox Pictures, 1989)
I suppose this also means Branden was an agnostic on the evolution issue. Incredible.
To me this sounds as if Branden was as shocked as I am to find her taking the 5th Amendment regarding evolution.
About evolution: given enough time, our origins in the singularity of microorganisms that developed connections and assembled themselves in ever more complex groupings eventually led to the forms we are today, with trillions of cells, more than half of which are not even our own human DNA but symbiotic bacteria and microorganisms that inhabit our bodies and help to keep us alive. .
What I love and admire about Ayn Rand's thinking is that it gives us a vision of what we can evolve into when our marvelous brains are still more fully developed, as they have been doing for the last 100,000 years. Ask yourself why human brains are so much more capable than chimps' and even bonobos'.
We are indeed in the next stage of evolution now. The Age of Reason has just begun, even with all the setbacks we see around us. Rand was a pioneer, a forerunner, an outpost, an echo from the time of Aristotle, a gifted visionary impatient to see the "ideal man" appear in reality. If Atlas Shrugged is a type of science fiction, imagine how much more humans will be capable of when traveling into space, when we can move past our primitive violence and mutual destruction to a stage of mutual benefit and collaboration.
If Ayn Rand was “uncomfortable” about evolution, it may just have been impatience that it took so long.