RoR: Forum

Jenna,

Regarding Rand, you said ...
===============
But she did ground philosophy in a lot of fundamental levels that allow for rationality, individualism, growth, and progress; the trick is is to understand her on a "life" level rather than just at a "words" level.
===============

How poignant! Folks stuck on out of context "words" (the intrinsico-Objectivists), get stuck in ruts -- when applying the philosophy to their lives. Right!

Ed

Post 41

Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:11pm

Re Ayn Rand's views about the bad-premises causation of cancer, Jody wrote:

"The source is PAR.� And there are other sources, such as the Blumenthals, who discuss her irrational defense of smoking, and denial that it can lead to cancer."

I think her views on the subject were pretty common knowledge in NYCity O'ist circles. At any rate, they were talked about numerous times amongst my own circles of O'ist friends. And one person from whom I heard of her views on the subject was Leonard Peikoff, during a lunch conversation at Brooklyn Poly in 1970. Later I heard it from Allan Blumenthal. Still later, after Allan had split with Ayn, I heard from him about how he'd tried after her operation to talk her into making a public statement to her followers about the dangers of smoking, but she wouldn't.

In addition to the "bad-premises" theory, she was also very negative on the whole practice of using statistics as a basis for establishing health risks -- indeed, on the practice of using statistics as a method of demonstration of risk, period. Leonard Peikoff talks about this at some length in one of his taped lecture courses, I think in "The Art of Reasoning," though it might be one of the others.

Ellen

Post 42

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:05am

Re - post 36 - is one of the things I like about you, Jenna - ye grasp, more than most, the idea of the 'integrated being' in an integrated universe.....

Post 43

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 6:27pm

Ellen-
Thank you very much for your further infromation and for bringing first hand knowledge to the discussion.

Post 44

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 8:14pm

"I've done that too. Sometimes, badly. And with horrid results. I know that I will try not to, but not that I will *never* do it again."

It's admirable to pursue that even at the fringes. Good point about ESP and such; there should properly be an evaluation of even such claims at least once. Your mention of reading pseudoscience books+sites as well as Skeptic, etc. definitely is the type of due diligence. I was into the paranormal (Christianity included) long ago and did the homework, at one point rejecting it in favor of science. Where it would be hard to apply a same level of diligence now is if the next person comes along and claims they're the real McCoy. Do you do the same level of homework again? Or are you tempted to say "Go see James Randi and come talk to me again when you're $1,000,000 richer!" :)

"...I can say that I *did* study the Bible extensively [w/in the Torah]-- I've read 90% of it, and about 25% of it more than once. Shortest verse in the Bible? John 11:35, "Jesus wept". ;) I've also read a textbook on Buddhism, the Mahabharata [w/in it the Bhagavad Gita], the Tibetan book of the Dead, the Tao Te Ching, and grew up with Chinese god/goddess stories."

Cool! I had essentially the same attitude in college, and went about it by telling any 'witnesser' that if they gave me a copy of their holy text, I'd make a sincere effort to read it. I made it through the Bible (though I kinda skimmed some of the dull books..), but only completely through the Tao and Gita for other texts. Sounds like you've managed to be more thorough.

"The Koran and the Book of Mormon is next on my list."

*grin* Careful with those. Those are exactly the two major ones I never finished, which effectively ended my religious text era. I made it only a book or two in the Book of Mormon and a surah or two in the Koran. Perhaps it was just that the eastern works were unique and interesting enough compared to the Bible and returning to reading western monotheism was a letdown, but in any case I couldn't garner the enthusiasm to finish those. I'd be interested to hear if you do successfully tackle them.

"Accpetance of QM is still hard, given that it's relatively new, & currently counterintuitive, compared to Newton's Laws."

No doubt! I've even encountered Objectivists who reject QM due to 'philosophical objections', thinking that it somehow violates A=A. As you point out, further science and even practical technology has reached a point where QM cannot be brushed aside. Anything involving reverse causation, multiple universes or requiring a conscious observer is still enough to make your head spin though, so I sympathize with the Einsteinian desire to at least try to find something deterministic underlying it all.

Best of luck in your battle with the cultists.

Post 45

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:42pm

The source is PAR. And there are other sources, such as the Blumenthals, who discuss her irrational defense of smoking, and denial that it can lead to cancer.

I heard from him about how he'd tried after her operation to talk her into making a public statement to her followers about the dangers of smoking, but she wouldn't.

I gather from this two main problems stemming from one mistake: the denial. One about smoking-influences-cancer-formation, the other about statistics. She *was* a human being confronted with cancer, confronted with death. Of course it's natural for humans to deny such information, even if it's for a second or in more extreme cases, for a long while. Sadly, it didn't seem like she herself took the responsibility of her own philosophy in this regard-- perfectly understandable in my eyes, because I never divorce her from her humanity.

She could not warn others because she was in denial. This denial extended into her statements as well as her views on statistical methods. But to understand her context gives more understanding to the reasons underlying her statements, even if they were inaccurate and even destructive responses. I may be psychologizing here... but that *is* part of my education.

P.S. Her statements on statistics is scientifically irrelevant to me because I cannot write a research paper without doing ANOVA, while having a background in fundamental statistics and data studies. There are other statements of hers that I don't take seriously either; these are the ones referring to brain/mind/cognitive/psychological/psychiatric science. Again, she was wise in many ways. But not even Aristotle was perfection. Blasphemy? Well, only in a Platonian world of religion-like reverence. [smile]

Post 46

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 2:37pm

Jenna,

Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you say Ayn Rand was in d... d... d... d..

ahem...

(denial????)

Don't say that too loud. That's too close to the "E" word.

Some folks don't cotton to Rand and the "E" word being in the same sentence unless she is saying that about somebody else...

(looking around furtively and slinking off...)

Michael

Post 47

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:00pm

Yes, MSK, I know. That Evil E word applies to everyone in the sense that no one can be free of truth and reality and expect happiness. Also, I do note that I am responding to what is posted about her response; also "denial" is not the word I used first. :)

I don't seek to foment outrage and fighting at all. That's not my aim. But as for 'don't speak it aloud'-- while I don't even have Ani DiFranco stuff and I don't agree with everything she says or stands for, I like *some* words of hers:

I don't need anyone to hold me
I can hold my own
I got highways for stretchmarks
see where I've grown
I sing sometimes
like my life is at stake
'cause you're only as loud
as the noises you make
I'm learning to laugh as hard
as I can listen
'cause silence
is violence
[snip]
a good brain ain't diddley
if you don't have the facts
[snip]
for every lie I unlearn
I learn something new
I sing sometimes for the war that I fight
'cause every tool is a weapon -
if you hold it right.

[smile]

Post 48

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:15pm

Jenna-
I agree with you that she could have been in denial, but from what I understand, her discrediting statistical methods was in use long before the cancer, and was used to rationalize her smoking. I've also seen other objectivists with some crazy notions about statistical methods.
As for Ani, I literally threw her CD's into the garbage one day when I heard some of her philosophical and political statements. Though I'll admit that you are certainly 32 flavors and then some. ;)

Post 49

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:18pm

I literally threw her CD's into the garbage one day when I heard some of her philosophical and political statements.

That's why all the "snips". That's why I only like one or two songs at most, some lyrics sometimes, and that's why I don't own any of her stuff. I don't go for the you-done-me-wrong-and-I'm-gonna-whine-about-oppression approach. I'm more the you-done-me-wrong-and-boy-your-ass-is-gonna-get-*served* type.

As for stats methods, all I can say is good luck convincing scientists that they don't need stats. Good luck with eradicating ANOVA-- it's highly prevalent among 75% of the scientific papers I've read. One might as well propose research and development into "cootie shots".

"32 flavors and then some"? LOL-- I've never gotten that description before! :) Yes, sometimes I think I'm a circus act.

Post 50

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:04pm

Yeah - the high wire can be quite a trip..........
[used to work in a circus, so know.... ;-)]

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/20, 8:05pm)

Post 51

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:39pm

(Sigh) Let's go through the chronology again in regard to Rand's views on statistics and on cancer and her developing cancer herself.

Jody wrote to Jenna:

"I agree with you that she could have been in denial, but from what I understand, her discrediting statistical methods was in use long before the cancer, and was used to rationalize her smoking."

Rand's idea of the bad-premise etiology of cancer was one she held long before she was diagnosed with cancer. It's not an idea she formed in order to deny that she had cancer (as Jenna seemed to suggest). Instead, because she had that idea, she had trouble understanding how she could have developed cancer. Nor do I think that her views on statistical methods -- views which, again (Jody's correct), she held long before the cancer diagnosis -- were ones she formed to rationalize her smoking. Instead, because of her strongly held views on the subject of statistics, she felt no threat posed by statistical studies; she considered those irrelevant to whether or not smoking was dangerous to her health.

(I'll add that in any case the evidence wasn't nearly so strong then as the Surgeon General's report indicated it was. I was privy to the actual state of research in the late '60s/early '70s, through a couple jobs I had at the national headquarters of the American Cancer Society. But the public was presented with an image of stronger evidence than existed, and Rand wouldn't have known insider's information. She discredited the report as not being applicable, because of her prior-existing views. Her views were in error; but they weren't formed in order to rationalize her smoking. Given the beliefs she had, there was no need for rationalizing.)

Ellen

___
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 3/20, 11:52pm)

Post 52

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:26am

Ellen you wrote:

"Rand's idea of the bad-premise etiology of cancer was one she held long before she was diagnosed with cancer."

I hate to ask, but what is the source for this? It is important. Why? Because it gets repeated and becomes "truth". If the only source is PAR, then cite it everytime you mention it. Why? Because it is attributing the irrationality coming from a champion of reason.

It would be more accurate to use "According to PAR" as a preface to a statement about Ayn Rand, for which there is no other evidence.

John

Post 53

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 10:24am

John Newnhan just wrote:

It would be more accurate to use "According to PAR" as a preface to a statement about Ayn Rand, for which there is no other evidence.

The obvious insinuation being that PAR is not a credible source. The trouble is people don't read when they hate. I quote from Post 41 above:

And one person from whom I heard of her views on the subject was Leonard Peikoff, during a lunch conversation at Brooklyn Poly in 1970.

This was way before PAR was written. (There are other sources given throughout this thread, too. All one has to do is read before trying to control the behavior of other posters.)

Michael

Post 54

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:28am

Michael, perhaps John really wasn't cognitively impaired by hatred. Perhaps John really did note Ellen's various cited facts (occurring prior to PAR), but it was just an oversight in his post and that his insinuation really should have been explicitly stated as twofold.

Perhaps he really meant to say that neither PAR nor Ellen Stuttle is credible, and that we should say "according to PAR" or "according to Ellen Stuttle," and then dismiss because they are "anti-Rand" (i.e., non-obliterative of uncomfortable facts) or some such rot. Perhaps...

Of course, if John is not intending to diss Ellen's testimony of her own experience, then he is welcome to say so here, instead of skulking in silent embarrassment. In any case, he can join us all in noting (if he dares) that here is yet further independent corroboration for PAR than many of its critics would care to acknowledge.

REB

Post 55

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:35am

Jenna W. Hope you do more writing here.

btw: ANOVA still haunts my dreams right there with an old clunky version of SPSS. It was years after, that I saw the big picture.

Post 56

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:52am

John Newnham wrote:

"If the only source is PAR [re AR's views on the etiology of cancer], then cite it everytime you mention it. Why? Because it is attributing the irrationality coming from a champion of reason."

John,

Please do read or reread post #41. PAR is by no means the only source. The subject was discussed -- more than a decade before PAR's publication -- at least among my circles of O'ist friends, one circle of which included both David Kelley and a number of science and/or math graduate students -- some of whom, btw, went with the ARI camp when the split between Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley occurred. And among the close associates of Rand from whom I heard of it was Leonard himself.

As to "the irrationality," I beg to differ that it's so all-fired "irrational." Please see my post #51 which includes a parenthetic about the evidential situation in regard to cancer then. The epistemological context was different at the time when she would have formed her views. And even today, psychosomatic factors aren't considered irrelevant.

In regard to her views on statistics, I repeat that Leonard Peikoff talks about those in a taped course which can be acquired from ARI, I think the one called "The Art of Reasoning," though it might be one of the others.

Ellen

___

Post 57

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:13pm

It would take a triple dog dare Roger, to haul me out of my skulking, silent, embarassment.

"The obvious insinuation being that PAR is not a credible source."

No, boys, no insinuation was intended. Nor is one necessary. I had never heard that Rand considered cancer to be the result of bad premises. Sounded a little weird.

I regret that discussion of Jenna's wonderful article here is off track. Sorry Jenna, for the diversion.

John

Post 58

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:18pm

Ellen, thank you for the explanation.

"The epistemological context was different at the time when she would have formed her views. And even today, psychosomatic factors aren't considered irrelevant."

I get where you are coming from, Ellen. As my kids would say, my bad, for not reading your original post carefully.

John

Post 59

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:03pm