Grames

Since the preceding post by Alex, Putin and Prigozhin reached an agreement, avoiding armed conflict among the Russian mercenary group and the regular Russian troops. I see this as a victory for Putin in his Ukraine quest. Those mercenary troops, as well as the Chechen mercenary troops, are now returned to Ukraine to continue Putin's aggression and hegemony. Prigozhin in exile in Belarus is surely a dead man walking, although Putin may leave him alive until he has secured unity of the Wagner troops with the regular Russian troops, all under regular Russian military command. I still think Putin will not enter negotiations bringing peace to Ukraine until after the US elections of 2024, hoping for Republican wins that might cut US Military aid to Ukraine and bring him advances in the war for bargaining position or perhaps victory.  

With World Focused On Israel, WaPo Boasts CIA Is Behind Brazen Assassinations Of Russians
BY TYLER DURDEN TUESDAY, OCT 24, 2023 - 07:05 PM At a moment the globe's attention is by and large completely focused on events in Gaza, The Washington Post has this week published a bombshell report which vindicates Moscow's worst fears. Up to now, any pundit daring to write that Putin's accusations that the West has for years backed a covert campaign to destabilize Russia while stoking the 2014 (and after) civil war in Donbass, was smeared as a 'pro-Kremlin propagandist'. 
But now, the D.C. establishment's premier newspaper is openly admitting that the CIA is actively running covert ops inside Russia, which has included the killing of journalist and geopolitical commentator Darya Dugina, the daughter of Alexaner Dugin. Another "conspiracy theory" has been belatedly admitted as conspiracy fact.
The report stunningly documents of this "shadow war" that, "The missions have involved elite teams of Ukrainian operatives drawn from directorates that were formed, trained, and equipped in close partnership with the CIA, according to current and former Ukrainian and US officials. Since 2015, the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said."
Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/world-focused-israel-gaza-wapo-boasts-cia-has-been-behind-brazen-assassinations
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/

He ain't wrong on this. The CIA, State Department and Pentagon have been writing the headlines in this country for decades now.  People in news organizations cooperate willingly for the social status and the promise of future inside information which helps their careers and personal wealth.  This is so commonplace and ordinary that some people don't even recognize it as corruption.

That is not my viewpoint, but a viewpoint not compatible with "Rand's substantial theory of truth".  I led off my message with "It" and the referent of that "It" was "Rand's substantial theory of truth" from the quote that was given immediately above in that post.  Long form writing and message board writing are very different, so my apologies for contributing to your confusion by not spelling things out more explicitly.   
To be clear, I agree with your "... unknown facts need not be characterized as a standing in some mind, specifically, as in a God-like omniscience-perspective."  I was making the point that arguments based on hindsight have similarity to arguments based on that God-like omniscience-perspective.  If the omniscient perspective is rejected then so should the hindsight perspective be rejected.

Is the notion that that CIA coined the term 'conspiracy theory(ist)' as a propaganda tool to dissuade people from engaging in the idea that JFK's assassination may not be the result of a lone wolf actor, a theory about a conspiracy ? or an actual action of the CIA?
Trump is a Russian agent!! Proof pending..
Covid infection is lethal!!
Covid mRNA injections are safe and effective !!
Snickers really satisfy!!
Yeah , what is Tony on about.
I'm sure you just mean , that you have to challenge his assertion that the 'entire' , every single vestige of the 'media' is centrally directed verbatim yada , yada.
All lives matter is racist!!
Ukraine is basically Kansas!! Who wouldn't display the colors?! a Traitor that's who !!

When you imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist, that is a statement about the person rather than the argument they are making.
Saying that someone "must be irrational if they support X, Y, or Z" can be an argument from intimidation, like "Oh, you can't claim to be an Objectivist if you believe X, Y, or Z, because then you'd be irrational, and Objectivists have to be rational." It's an appeal to Objectivist peer pressure, especially trying to say that "this is supposed to be an Objectivist board so only Objectivist points of view should be able to be posted here," etc.
And both are a form of psychologizing -- attacking a statement by going into the mental state of the person making it, instead of attacking it by comparing it to reality.
If you want to show that some statement X is mistaken, then you have to show why without reference to the person making the statement.
If you want to show that a statement is arbitrary then you need to show that no evidence, of any kind, could establish its truth or falsehood -- that it is "detached from reality" in the specific sense that reality wouldn't make any difference to it.
(It's possible for something to be arbitrary "in practice" and to prove this by using other facts about the world to establish that it is arbitrary; it is valid, for example, to say that a statement is arbitrary because the current state of technology is such that nobody could know today whether it is true or false -- even if in principle it might become known someday. This is how you deal with the claim of the teapot orbiting Venus.)
Finally, it's not always possible to prove something definitively on any sort of forum. This is why civilization as such sometimes requires people to agree to disagree. It is also one of the reasons why freedom is important. There can be a difference between what you know and what you can prove to others.

This is nothing but an ad hominem and an argument from intimidation.
The whole debate is about which facts to use, because if someone can cause facts to be discarded, or lies to be treated as facts, they can rig the argument to produce any result they want, even without changing the principles.
The "mainstream Western media" has learned that they can get perquisites by going along with the party line; the government, which makes news whenever it changes its policies, can reward obedient reporters by giving them scoops. This has been true for a long time; Rush Limbaugh's radio show cited example after example after example (of reporters uncritically repeating what they were told by leftist politicians). I see no evidence that this situation has changed, and much evidence that it has gotten worse. I also see no evidence that the situation is any different with the Ukraine issue than any other (such as gun control). That the media lies is not a "conspiracy theory." It is very real, and has been going on for decades.
I do not agree with @whYNOT about everything, but I very much disagree with the notion of censoring or canceling everything and everybody that "goes against the mainstream." Ayn Rand also went against the mainstream, and if she were to have written her novels in today's environment, no one would know about her.

All conjecture and propaganda-fuelled "revanchist" nonsense. Regard the Russian actions - foremost. Politicians' rhetoric and accusations of misdeeds count little. Make your own deductions from facts.
It is "a given":  invading Poland etc.etc., would result in nuclear catastrophe - everybody loses. Does anyone think the Kremlin didn't/does not know this, or would welcome annihilation? First order of the western propaganda we saw was to get around that minor detail, to promote an "insane Putin" who'd immolate his country along with everybody else.
Turns out he is quite rational.
And supposing for a moment there was no NATO Art. 5 - and no nukes - what was Putin going to do with an enemy nation he invaded and at great cost, defeated? Occupy it indefinitely, despite recurring insurrections by the populace?
Then move onto the next country?
All to spread and force the ideology of Orthodox Christianity? And maybe install the Czarist Empire in every nation?
All the above too ridiculous to entertain for a second.
Quite explicitly, the Kremlin has dismissed even conquering and occupying Western Ukraine, where they'd be heavily opposed by extremist anti-Russians. What does that make of the "Russian Empire" project? Nonsense; made up by rationalistic academics.
If you read your media with a critical eye, you'd see that Putin often responded to arms escalations and to rhetorical threats of foreign intervention (the "Coalition of the Willing") with a reminder to the West that Russia, beyond its effective conventional forces, has a nuclear capacity as its final line of defense; in other words, "don't push us too far". Like, launching serious attacks on our cities and land, a red line. Presented by the alarmist media and taken by gullible readers to be a direct threat he at any time would - initiate- nuclear use. The subtlety of a caution vs. an intentional threat escapes many. E.g. Putin wants to nuke us!
Quite irrelevant, the interference in foreign elections, either insignificant or unfounded - or refuted, like "Russiagate" in the US - and not a sign of Russian hostility. 
The trouble is that the West cannot accept that most Russians sincerely believe there was/is an existential threat by NATO/Kyiv looming for Russia. Things would escalate out of hand, sooner or later. Large forces amassed near the border, increasing assaults on the Donbas last year-- and then-- NATO membership giving Ukraine great military and nuclear might. So a first strike was logical and justifiable, while a terrible pity, most Russians apparently think. On principle, for any nation in that difficult position, I agree.
Therefore the West can never accept that
1. Putin's act were (mainly) defensive, in the interests of national survival and neutrality avoiding more conflicts with Nato/Ukraine in the forseeable future.
2. Nato's acts in Ukraine and the potential and future actions were and are now, mainly malign and offensive, in the supposed "interests" of the West.
Proof: Item A. You can see it and heard it. There has been every explicit intention to allow, continue and prolong the war (to Ukraine's cost) and every evasion of a quick negotiated settlement, as Putin offered. . 
The "defense of Ukraine and western values", etc., etc., is mendacious. Ukraine clearly has been made to be the sacrificial martyr to others' ends. Losing (or winning) against Russia, could have no other outcome but a grave self-sacrifice.
Conclusion: Not about "Ukraine". The prime objective was and is, undermining and overthrowing the RF.

It's over.  Russia wins.
The New Current Thing is Israel's war of extermination against the Gaza concentration camp.  All further media attention and war funding will go there.  Without being propped up by the U.S. their Ukrainian puppet regime will collapse and Russia and its puppets will survive.  Biden will attempt to fund the two wars at once but it is too much to ask.

An objective reality must exist in order for there to be truth and falsehood.  To claim "objective reality does not exist" is a statement which is true or false.  Also, it is stated in such a way that proving the statement requires proving a negative which can only be done by inventorying the Universe and determining that every last corner of it is non-objective.  If that could somehow be accomplished, that would immediately create at least that one objectively true fact and the effort refutes itself.

Here‘s the lecture.
Below is my outline. Please don’t hesitate to point out errors. Also, in brackets are my own contributions. Finally, Dr. Salmieri topically jumps around a few times so I placed them in the outline where they should be topically for cognitive organization and ease of understanding.
Does anyone have the redacted Q&A?
————————————————————————————
How do we decide between competing claims?
I. Testimonial knowledge
A. Types
1. Witness: Perceived something we didn’t
2. Expert: Completed specialized intellectual work
B. Challenges
1. Types
a. Lying
b. Mistaken
i. Rudimentary mistakes involving the misapplication of knowledge are easy to catch by competing experts
ii. But we don’t automatically know the right method and standards for each science and thereby, mistakes of method and standards are [relatively] difficult to catch
c. Biased
i. This is a major problem affecting both witnesses and experts—including whole fields of science
(a) The more intellectual work is required, the more opportunities there are for bias
(b) Teaching institutions are biased (especially a problem for experts)
(i) The teachers could all be biased
(ii) Admissions selection criteria could be biased
(c) Cultural biases
d. Politics (extent of freedom vs. force)
i. Insofar that there is [the initiation of] force, the more difficult it is to identify expertise and act on the best options
II. How can knowledge be communicated when knowledge is a [personal] process?
A. Chronology of the work involved in the process of knowledge
1. Perception
2. Form concepts based on perceived significant similarities
3. Make judgments identifying existence by applying concepts to them
4. Keep track of epistemic statuses of judgments
5. Integrate concepts and judgments into consistent whole
B. How to divide up process of knowledge
1. Mistaken approaches
a. Slavish following of authority, i.e., authoritarianism
i. Types
(a) Insistent/militant
(i) Example: “95% of scientists say X so how can you challenge it? Who are you to challenge it?”
(b) Passive: Takes for granted that what was learned in school or people in general is true because everything thinks it
ii. Proper approach instead of authoritarianism: Take what one learned [claims] as unprocessed content and assign it an epistemic status when relevant to do so
(a) Familiarity [i.e., knowledge of claims] vs. expertise
b. Faux independence
i. Types
(a) Universal Google/Wikipedia/newspaper/magazine/etc. Scholarship: Reads a few things on an issue and concludes that one is on intellectual par with experts
(i) Proper approach instead of such “scholarship”: Present these things to an expert [or experts] to integrate
(b) Illegitimate appeal to personal experience (i.e., perception or low level conceptualizations, e.g., “It’s hot in here”) and ordinary knowledge (i.e., knowledge that is available without specialized knowledge)
(i) Examples: “Of course there’s global warming: It was hot yesterday and Hurricane Sandy was awful”; “There’s no global warming: It was freezing yesterday”; and many medical self-experimentation [by laymen]
(ii) Proper approach instead of such illegitimate appeals: Ask an expert [or experts] on how to integrate one’s personal experience and ordinary knowledge because such integration requires expert knowledge
2. What we need from experts
a. Evidence of expertise
i. Evidence of the field’s legitimacy
ii. Evidence of the expert’s proficiency in the field
b. Specificity of claims and level of certainty
c. Relevant context that one needs to assess the expert’s judgment (this includes the status of his claim in his field)
d. Outlined [epistemological] reduction of claims
e. Respect for one’s intelligence, context, and intellectual independence
3. After getting what we need from an expert [or experts]
a. How does one know that the claim is true? What’s the epistemic status?
i. “I judge the <proposition> with having <epistemic status>. Here’s why: <Proposition> is a matter that would have to be determined by a certain science. How do I know that? <Proposition> requires specialized knowledge and this science is the relevant specialty. <Expert> is a reliable expert in this science. How do I know that? He has the relevant qualifications. How do I know that? I have every reason to think that he’s honest and none that he’s dishonest. I have every reason to think that he’s an objective thinker as shown by his respect for my cognitive needs. <Expert> asserts <proposition> with <epistemic status> on the following grounds: <Outlined [epistemological] reduction>.”
(a) Essentially: I have reason to think that he’s an expert and he says it for these reasons.
4. How does one assess that the person is an expert, that the field is valid [i.e., legitimate], and that the argument that requires expertise to make is a good argument if one doesn’t have the expertise? How does one judge the outlined [epistemological] reduction?
a. Ignorant -> educated -> expert
b. What enables one to make the assessment and judgment is being educated in the field
i. Most generally, one is an objective thinker (e.g. knows the principles of logic) -> more specifically, one is knowledgeable on how much one knows about the methods and standards of a field, as well as knowing when one needs to supplement that knowledge
ii. Example: ScienceBasedMedicine.com [sic; it’s actually dot org]
5. Consensus
a. It’s arbitrary to favor one expert when the evidence of expertise is equivalent among other experts
b. One must integrate, not ignore, the presence of conflicting expert opinion
c. Awareness of consensus is essential [to being an objective consumer of expertise]
d. Authoritarianists use consensus to justify their claims
i. But historically, most consensus was wrong
ii. One needs evidence that a field is not pseudoscience because nonobjectivity in cutting edge science is the norm per history, mistakes, and biases. One needs evidence of the exception.
iii. There are degrees between pseudoscience and legitimate science
(a) Example: Evolution (race theory and eugenics were based on evolution and advocated by good scientists)
III. Alternative science: School of thought that is rejected/marginalized by the consensus of experts (i.e., consensus of people in the culture that deem who are experts) in the relevant field
A. Examples: Skeptical climate science, creation science, revisionist history, alternative medicine/nutrition, Austrian economics, Montessori education, the Theory of Elementary Wave, Bohmian mechanics [and Objectivism]
B. Tends to directly appeal to the public rather than go through the usual channels
C. Valuable to have in the culture as a check. A healthy culture will have alternative sciences. There is something wrong if a culture doesn’t have alternative sciences.
D. Challenges
1. For experts in the alternative science, it’s more difficult to maintain objectivity
2. It’s easy to develop a persecution complex, making one defensive to criticism
3. Social isolation from reviews from critics with different views because alternative science experts cluster together due to no one else wanting to talk about the alternative science [and this applies to Objectivism too]
4. It’s more difficult for non-experts to acquire positive knowledge from alternative science
5. Objectivism is at high risk of crackpottery [and I can attest to this, especially on Facebook]

My watershed moment was the Nordstream sabotage.  Madmen are calling the shots and must be stopped.
 

From my notes on Dr. Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" the outline of his take on the issue is as follows:
...
II. Primacy of Existence cannot be proven
A. Proof cannot begin by premising facts external to consciousness because that begs the question
B. Proof cannot begin by premising facts about consciousness as that contradicts the thesis that facts external to consciousness must be known first before awareness of awareness is possible
C. There are no other kinds of premises
D. Primacy of Existence cannot be a conclusion
E. "P of E" is self-evident not arbitrary or an act of faith
F. "P of E" is axiomatic because existence is implicit in any and all instances of awareness, any attempt to deny it affirms it
G. The third person external perspective when used to explain consciousness is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective.
...
This and more, all in the first chapter.  I wonder if you are familiar with the work?

From my notes on Dr. Kelley's "Evidence of the Senses" the outline of his take on the issue is as follows:
...
II. Primacy of Existence cannot be proven
A. Proof cannot begin by premising facts external to consciousness because that begs the question
B. Proof cannot begin by premising facts about consciousness as that contradicts the thesis that facts external to consciousness must be known first before awareness of awareness is possible
C. There are no other kinds of premises
D. Primacy of Existence cannot be a conclusion
E. "P of E" is self-evident not arbitrary or an act of faith
F. "P of E" is axiomatic because existence is implicit in any and all instances of awareness, any attempt to deny it affirms it
G. The third person external perspective when used to explain consciousness is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective.
...
This and more, all in the first chapter.  I wonder if you are familiar with the work?

Seymour Hersh is a man with a track record, but he is just one guy.  No need to commit to any particular theory at this time.  What is most scandalous of all and particularly damning in its implication, is the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence.  

It is neither.  Ayn Rand first wrestled with this problem in print in "The Fountainhead" with the idea of the 'second-hander'.  For the second-hander the nature of reality is first and primarily other people.  That is a fundamental framework at the level of a metaphysical theory that shapes what kinds of concepts and strategies will occur to a person.  Only a psychological theory could explain why a person would cling to this throughout a lifetime, and even then that just pushes the question one level further on to "why do people cling to their psychological problems?"  So Rand went on a little further, arriving in "Atlas Shrugged" at the idea of "choosing to live" via "choosing to value".  
Some people just don't know how to value or to choose to live, others actively choose not to live.
The above is based upon Salmieri's "Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing" which is about "Philosophically significant observations about valuing can be had by revisiting the fiction."  Relevant Rand quotes are there pulled together conveniently including one or two from her journals.  (The hand-out accompanying the course is no longer available.)
 

Most of the bullshit that is intellectual crime is itself arm chair philosophizing, why should it not be able to be refuted from an arm chair?  One can refer to reality from an arm chair as easily as evade it.

Dr. David Kelley's thesis was a defense of his theory of perception which he described as direct realism.  That any version of representationalism requires an homonculus inside to do the real perceiving is a critique that he made there.  His book "The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception" is an overview of the topic of perception in philosophy and a presentation of his defense of direct realism.  
Dr. Kelley was tutored in Objectivism at the feet of Rand herself (figuratively speaking, mostly) and is most definitely to be counted among "Objectivist philosophers".  He completed this work while he was in her social circle. Rand had no interest in doing the kind of dry scholarly writing that Kelley did here, so this treatment of the subject is as good as it may ever get as far as an Objectivist theory of perception.
I'm fairly disappointed no one else here remembered Kelley.
The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception  at Amazon.com.

Holy hell, don't go down that road of censoring messages or users.  Dividing people up into ever smaller bubbles that only are permitted to agree with each other is unethical and impractical.  Fobbing thread moderation off onto the thread originator is giving power to the people who are the least objective about the thread.  The topic of the Ukraine war is of broad enough interest that no matter who made it there would a lot of posts, AlexL has no control over that aspect and shouldn't be held responsible for it.  
If you did follow through on this there would be multiple threads on the same topic with contrary editorial and censoring policies.  If you want duplicate threads on every controversy, then do this because that is how you get duplicate threads.

Holy hell, don't go down that road of censoring messages or users.  Dividing people up into ever smaller bubbles that only are permitted to agree with each other is unethical and impractical.  Fobbing thread moderation off onto the thread originator is giving power to the people who are the least objective about the thread.  The topic of the Ukraine war is of broad enough interest that no matter who made it there would a lot of posts, AlexL has no control over that aspect and shouldn't be held responsible for it.  
If you did follow through on this there would be multiple threads on the same topic with contrary editorial and censoring policies.  If you want duplicate threads on every controversy, then do this because that is how you get duplicate threads.

Holy hell, don't go down that road of censoring messages or users.  Dividing people up into ever smaller bubbles that only are permitted to agree with each other is unethical and impractical.  Fobbing thread moderation off onto the thread originator is giving power to the people who are the least objective about the thread.  The topic of the Ukraine war is of broad enough interest that no matter who made it there would a lot of posts, AlexL has no control over that aspect and shouldn't be held responsible for it.  
If you did follow through on this there would be multiple threads on the same topic with contrary editorial and censoring policies.  If you want duplicate threads on every controversy, then do this because that is how you get duplicate threads.

From an essay by Bruce Fein about Robert Kagan.
(John Q Adam's vision, as pertinent as it is today. Absolutely--"the benignant sympathy of her example"--that is all we elsewhere need).
"Further, Kagan maintains, emancipating foreign nations from the Dark Ages is the optimal path to optimal democracy, liberty, and prosperity in the United States. He has no moment for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address to Congress expounding the foreign policy of the United States contrary to Kagan’s gospel:
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”"
JQA

Within minutes, I predicted, up pops the western propaganda troll. To again distract, impede and obfuscate debate. Even to insist on posters' removal.