Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Regulars
  • Posts

    2634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Causality as Given in Observation   
    Right, I agree with that. I wasn't trying to say that the hydrogen bond is observable, it is not. I was trying to make a point that water is something in reality and that is why it acts the way it does. This is given on the perceptual level as in the examples you gave, but some people insist on going to the latest greatest scientific discovery when talking about causation, so I decided to take up that challenge. We know about water and what it is with direct observation. Everything else we find out about it requires further investigations using scientific instruments and further abstractions.
  2. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ttime in Causality as Given in Observation   
    I would say no, that a thing's behavior is not its identity, though it can be used that way to differentiate one thing from another -- for example cats meow, but dogs bark. However, the identity is what something IS while it's causative identity is WHAT IT DOES. For dogs and cats, they are perceptually different, even before they make a noise or run. But for things like the sub-atomic particles, these are usually differentiated in how they act -- like how they behave in a given electric field, for example. However, their masses are different, and as far as we know now, this is not due to an identifiable action. And sub-atomic particles are generally not "at rest" in a given frame of reference (except for its own). Epistemologically, everything we know about something gets put into the concept of that something, so typical and identifiable actions are included in the concept. Still, there is a difference between what something is and what it does, which is more easily discernible on the perceptual level. That is, a tree is a tree even if it is not swaying in the breeze at a given moment of observation.
  3. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from dream_weaver in Causality as Given in Observation   
    I would say no, that a thing's behavior is not its identity, though it can be used that way to differentiate one thing from another -- for example cats meow, but dogs bark. However, the identity is what something IS while it's causative identity is WHAT IT DOES. For dogs and cats, they are perceptually different, even before they make a noise or run. But for things like the sub-atomic particles, these are usually differentiated in how they act -- like how they behave in a given electric field, for example. However, their masses are different, and as far as we know now, this is not due to an identifiable action. And sub-atomic particles are generally not "at rest" in a given frame of reference (except for its own). Epistemologically, everything we know about something gets put into the concept of that something, so typical and identifiable actions are included in the concept. Still, there is a difference between what something is and what it does, which is more easily discernible on the perceptual level. That is, a tree is a tree even if it is not swaying in the breeze at a given moment of observation.
  4. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Xall in Doctors and Individual Rights   
    Doctors all over the United States are wondering what they are going to do as the State encroaches more and more on their freedom to practice their profession unhindered by regulations and laws that prevent them from doing their jobs in a professional manner. As ObamaCare and other socialized health regulations increase, the doctor will find that he can no longer do his profession in an adequate manner, because he will have to focus more and more on satisfying a government regulator not familiar with medication and healing the sick. He will have to follow rules and regulations or hire a staff to do this, and all the while his patients – his customers – will receive less and less actual medical care. So, what is one supposed to do about this? I think it is important that the doctor comes to understand his individual rights and to stand up for them as he practices his profession.

    The concept of Individual rights means the right to be free of one’s fellow man so long as one is not injuring another through physical force. It means that a doctor has the inalienable right to practice his chosen profession in the manner he sees fit, without being considered guilty until proven innocent by some bureaucrat who doesn’t know the difference between a tonsil and a butter knife, or the difference between a virus infection and a bacterial infection. Just as in any other profession, the professional knows his job and can do it well without directions from Washington DC or any other State agency. And doctors need to understand that they have a right to practice their profession without interference, so long as they are not violating the rights of anyone else. And they need to understand that this is their *moral* right, that just as every other individual is free to practice his profession by his own intelligence and his own judgment, so too does the doctor have this right. It is moral for a doctor to deal directly with his patients to determine what is wrong with him and how to correct the problem; that just as an automobile mechanic doesn’t need a bureaucrat telling him how to supposedly fix an engine, so the doctor does not need a bureaucrat getting between him and his diagnosis.

    The doctor has to come to understand that this is his *moral right* and that anyone who interferes with that scientific discovery of what ails his patients is immoral and even evil insofar as he stands in the way of a scientific diagnosis. And he needs to speak out about his moral right to practice his profession. He needs to say that he knows more than Washington DC and any other State bureaucrat when it comes to diagnosing his patients and that he will not stand for the State interfering with his profession. Such interference is immoral and evil, since it can mean the difference between life and death and health and illness. It is certain possible for others to make this type of statement, as I am, but I am not a doctor and I will not be the one enslaved by the State if we get socialized medicine in this country. My health may well suffer as I get decreased medical attention, but I won’t be directly enslaved. The doctor will be treated as a slave of the State, and he needs to rebel against this by telling the State to back off!



    For more information, I recommend “Man’s Rights” by Ayn Rand and apply it to your life as a professional.

    Man's Rights by Ayn Rand


  5. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from West in Discussion of the concept of "objectivity"   
    I didn't realize Roderick was a member of oo.net. I've seen his posts on "objectivity" on FaceBook recently via his blog. His most recent one was posted to his blog, but I don't have the link. So, if you are on FB, you can look up his profile and get to them that way. In my opinion, he has introduced too many other thinkers into his latest blog on "objectivity" and that detracts from the primary content. I tried to get down to the fundamentals without going into the history of the concept and who else might have discussed it (including Aristotle). My essay is basically a shortened version of the chapter in OPAR.
  6. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from freestyle in Rush Limbaugh Grapples with the idea of Self Interest vs. Sacrifice   
    In the culture war we have going on, it is very important for successful individuals who are self-made to come out for rational self-interest, even if they are not going to be completely consistent in what else they have to say. Morality is more fundamental than politics. So if you want capitalism, you must have some successful individuals coming out and praising self-interest and capitalism. Of course, his and other Conservative's stance regarding religion and this country being founded on Christianity completely contradicts the call for rational self-interest, as the Bible is about self-sacrifice and not self-gaining. But it is a debate that needs to be out in the open so Ayn Rand's ideas can be discussed. Besides, he is not speaking for Objectivism, but rather speaking for his own understanding of the issues at hand; which is very mixed. But him coming out and saying he doesn't operate from a self-sacrificial stance is great, and I wish other successful individuals would come out and say it as well.
  7. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from 0096 2251 2110 8105 in A Question Concerning Kant   
    There is no evidence whatsoever for the noumenal, so it is arbitrary to even talk about it. Regarding things-in-themselves, there is no such thing. Perception gives us reality the way it really is; there is no underlying really real stuff, noumenal or otherwise. We observe the really real stuff with our senses. All the knowledge that we have is accurate, so long as we base it on what is observed and rationally integrate from there.

    What Kant was doing was driving a wedge between man's mind and existence; of trying to claim there was a really real stuff that we couldn't observe and couldn't understand in any way whatsoever. This is evil, because it makes all of man's knowledge superfluous; of not really being about reality. However, man does observe reality and he does know it objectively -- with his senses and with his rational mind based upon sensory evidence.

    No, Kant was not overly rational, as you claim. He wasn't rational at all because he never gave one shred of evidence for any of his claims. It's all a big fantasy, with no grounds whatsoever.

    And, yes, I have read Kant -- I studied him while I was getting my BA in philosophy. He took every skeptical claim against man's type of knowledge and fashioned it into a pseudo-system that went completely against rationality. That's why we consider him to be evil.
  8. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from CoolBlueReason in People Are Pirating Ayn Rand's Works!   
    As Ayn Rand's heir, Dr. Peikoff makes his living, in part, by the sales of Ayn Rand's work, so they are effectively stealing from him personally. These people doing this are evil, and they need to be stopped, if possible. But at least the Pirate Bay has the right name for it's evilness. I assume that they are making money from their ads, and that they would not want people coming in and stealing their revenue. However, they should turn a large portion of that advertising over to the Estate of Ayn Rand for their theft, and they should also go to jail. Objectivists ought to definitely be against this type of copyright thievery. After all, it was part of the protest of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged going on strike in the first place.
  9. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Myself in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    This is interesting, and I appreciate the replies to my previous posts. It seems as if some people are reading what I read on Whewell and coming to different conclusions. I basically said: THERE'S A KANTIAN IN THE ROOM! and others are saying: Paleese, he's not a Kantian, he's just mistaken. Even though Whewell seems to take the position that one's ideas control at least our perception of reality, some of you are saying this isn't Kantian. But our mind does not create reality, our physiology does make sensations into percepts, however it is not saying that ideas create percepts, and that is what I am questioning. If our ideas create perception and these ideas are innate, then what about the ideas that we do create as we observe reality? and how would this change our perceptions over time? or doesn't Whewell think this is the way it works? If our conscious mind creates perception, then we have no basis for being objective on the perceptual level without a method. In other words, if our conscious mind of ideas controls our perception, then we are in big trouble without an objective method of perceiving, and Whewell does not offer that in my reading of him. Unless Whewell is rejecting free will and all our ideas are automatic and create perception. But don't you see that if our conscious mind creates perception, then our vision of the world -- our perceptions -- would change as we gain knowledge, and this isn't the case at all. Getting sharper ideas doesn't improve our eyesight or give us super vision. Whewell's position undercuts the whole theory of knowledge, which has to be based on the automatic nature of perception that comes from physiology, not ideas. Ideas do not control, how we literally see the world.

    Philosophers have to be taken literally and not figuratively. If Whewell is saying our conscious mind controls perception and perception is our contact with the world, then he is effectively saying that our mind creates reality, which is a Kantian premise.

    So, again I lay down this challenge: If you want to defend Whewell as having something rational to say, then the onus of proof is on you to point that out. And if you are siding with McCaskey, and he is supportive of Whewell, then you have to show how Whewell is rational. I don't see it at all, unless one is going to be wishy-washy about the meaning of words. Taking Whewell literally, how is he rational?
  10. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Regarding Craig Biddle's statement on the resignation of John McCaskey. I think it belongs in this thread, since the resignation was over "The Logical Leap." Craig's statement can be found here. I think he is missing a crucial point, and that is that one can take Dr. Peikoff as not only a credible witness, but an expert witness, if one is going to handle this like a trial. What did Dr.Peikoff witness?

    "By the way, from the emails I have seen, his [McCaskey's] disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue."

    Certainly, Dr.Peikoff is a credible and expert witness when it comes to philosophic detection. That we have not seen the evidence ourselves, I think, means that we cannot condemn John McCaskey. But we have to understand Dr. Peikoff as a witness. So, I am most certainly not going to condemn Dr. Peikoff for this supposed injustice. I haven't seen the evidence myself, so I cannot condemn McCaskey; but I also don't have the evidence Craig claims to have that McCaskey is a moral man and an Objectivist in good standing. I know very little about McCaskey, and as far as I know he hasn't written anything about Objectivism, so I don't know his intellectual stature with regard to Objectivism. His writings on Whewell seem to be written from a rational perspective -- that is I don't think McCaskey is a Kantian even though Whewell is -- and maybe it is possible to understand Whewell more rationally. Until I know more about Whewell, I can't say one way or the other.

    I do, however, agree with the overall tenor of many Objectivists who want to see the evidence against McCaskey first-hand, but it doesn't look like we are going to be getting that. I do have evidence (McCaskey's review of "The Logical Leap" and his support for William Whewell) to be suspicious of McCaskey, but I haven't condemned him and will not condemn him until I have the evidence first-hand.
  11. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from softwareNerd in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Regarding Craig Biddle's statement on the resignation of John McCaskey. I think it belongs in this thread, since the resignation was over "The Logical Leap." Craig's statement can be found here. I think he is missing a crucial point, and that is that one can take Dr. Peikoff as not only a credible witness, but an expert witness, if one is going to handle this like a trial. What did Dr.Peikoff witness?

    "By the way, from the emails I have seen, his [McCaskey's] disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue."

    Certainly, Dr.Peikoff is a credible and expert witness when it comes to philosophic detection. That we have not seen the evidence ourselves, I think, means that we cannot condemn John McCaskey. But we have to understand Dr. Peikoff as a witness. So, I am most certainly not going to condemn Dr. Peikoff for this supposed injustice. I haven't seen the evidence myself, so I cannot condemn McCaskey; but I also don't have the evidence Craig claims to have that McCaskey is a moral man and an Objectivist in good standing. I know very little about McCaskey, and as far as I know he hasn't written anything about Objectivism, so I don't know his intellectual stature with regard to Objectivism. His writings on Whewell seem to be written from a rational perspective -- that is I don't think McCaskey is a Kantian even though Whewell is -- and maybe it is possible to understand Whewell more rationally. Until I know more about Whewell, I can't say one way or the other.

    I do, however, agree with the overall tenor of many Objectivists who want to see the evidence against McCaskey first-hand, but it doesn't look like we are going to be getting that. I do have evidence (McCaskey's review of "The Logical Leap" and his support for William Whewell) to be suspicious of McCaskey, but I haven't condemned him and will not condemn him until I have the evidence first-hand.
  12. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from West in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Regarding Craig Biddle's statement on the resignation of John McCaskey. I think it belongs in this thread, since the resignation was over "The Logical Leap." Craig's statement can be found here. I think he is missing a crucial point, and that is that one can take Dr. Peikoff as not only a credible witness, but an expert witness, if one is going to handle this like a trial. What did Dr.Peikoff witness?

    "By the way, from the emails I have seen, his [McCaskey's] disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue."

    Certainly, Dr.Peikoff is a credible and expert witness when it comes to philosophic detection. That we have not seen the evidence ourselves, I think, means that we cannot condemn John McCaskey. But we have to understand Dr. Peikoff as a witness. So, I am most certainly not going to condemn Dr. Peikoff for this supposed injustice. I haven't seen the evidence myself, so I cannot condemn McCaskey; but I also don't have the evidence Craig claims to have that McCaskey is a moral man and an Objectivist in good standing. I know very little about McCaskey, and as far as I know he hasn't written anything about Objectivism, so I don't know his intellectual stature with regard to Objectivism. His writings on Whewell seem to be written from a rational perspective -- that is I don't think McCaskey is a Kantian even though Whewell is -- and maybe it is possible to understand Whewell more rationally. Until I know more about Whewell, I can't say one way or the other.

    I do, however, agree with the overall tenor of many Objectivists who want to see the evidence against McCaskey first-hand, but it doesn't look like we are going to be getting that. I do have evidence (McCaskey's review of "The Logical Leap" and his support for William Whewell) to be suspicious of McCaskey, but I haven't condemned him and will not condemn him until I have the evidence first-hand.
  13. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Trebor in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I don't know why West took down his post about the NoddleFood posting regarding the controversy, but I thank him for supplying the link. In that post there is a letter from David Harriman saying that he cannot support Whewell because Whewell was a 19th century Kantian. I have the same views on Whewell and do not understand why an Objectivist or a rational man would continue to support Whewell over Dr.Peikoff and David Harriman who have solved the problem of induction. So, I definitely see no reason to support McCaskey. But I will add that I cannot condemn him at this point since he doesn't seem to be promoting the Kantian aspects of Whewell. In other words, I am in the same position as before the NoddleFood post: I see no reason to support McCaskey on intellectual grounds and I don't see the evidence that he is a good Objectivist, his work at ARI and Anthem notwithstanding.

    Here's the link to the NoodleFood posting:

    http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html
  14. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Trebor in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I'm not against McCaskey's academic work per se. Judging from the papers available on his website he writes well and intelligently. I can see him supporting Bacon, as Bacon did provide many great leads on how to do science via Induction, but I don't know why he is supporting Whewell, but I don't know much about him. However, since McCaskey is recommending a book written by the author of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Whewell, he must agree that the article is written well, and I see nothing to support there or in McCaskey's own writing on Whewell. So, it is more of a curiosity. I do think there is an injustice on his review of "The Logical Leap" because the book deserves better from an academician. But at this point, I am not outright condemning McCaskey because I don't see what he did that so upset Dr. Peikoff. His review on amazon.com came after Peikoff's letter, and he's been promoting Whewell for quite some time (as others have pointed out), so that doesn't seem to be the cause. But I also don't see anything written by him on Objectivism, so I can't judge that. So, I'm moderately against McCaskey given what I've said here and in this thread, but I'm not condemning him to hell either. Maybe he just doesn't see the value in "The Logical Leap."
  15. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    This is interesting, and I appreciate the replies to my previous posts. It seems as if some people are reading what I read on Whewell and coming to different conclusions. I basically said: THERE'S A KANTIAN IN THE ROOM! and others are saying: Paleese, he's not a Kantian, he's just mistaken. Even though Whewell seems to take the position that one's ideas control at least our perception of reality, some of you are saying this isn't Kantian. But our mind does not create reality, our physiology does make sensations into percepts, however it is not saying that ideas create percepts, and that is what I am questioning. If our ideas create perception and these ideas are innate, then what about the ideas that we do create as we observe reality? and how would this change our perceptions over time? or doesn't Whewell think this is the way it works? If our conscious mind creates perception, then we have no basis for being objective on the perceptual level without a method. In other words, if our conscious mind of ideas controls our perception, then we are in big trouble without an objective method of perceiving, and Whewell does not offer that in my reading of him. Unless Whewell is rejecting free will and all our ideas are automatic and create perception. But don't you see that if our conscious mind creates perception, then our vision of the world -- our perceptions -- would change as we gain knowledge, and this isn't the case at all. Getting sharper ideas doesn't improve our eyesight or give us super vision. Whewell's position undercuts the whole theory of knowledge, which has to be based on the automatic nature of perception that comes from physiology, not ideas. Ideas do not control, how we literally see the world.

    Philosophers have to be taken literally and not figuratively. If Whewell is saying our conscious mind controls perception and perception is our contact with the world, then he is effectively saying that our mind creates reality, which is a Kantian premise.

    So, again I lay down this challenge: If you want to defend Whewell as having something rational to say, then the onus of proof is on you to point that out. And if you are siding with McCaskey, and he is supportive of Whewell, then you have to show how Whewell is rational. I don't see it at all, unless one is going to be wishy-washy about the meaning of words. Taking Whewell literally, how is he rational?
  16. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I'm not against McCaskey's academic work per se. Judging from the papers available on his website he writes well and intelligently. I can see him supporting Bacon, as Bacon did provide many great leads on how to do science via Induction, but I don't know why he is supporting Whewell, but I don't know much about him. However, since McCaskey is recommending a book written by the author of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Whewell, he must agree that the article is written well, and I see nothing to support there or in McCaskey's own writing on Whewell. So, it is more of a curiosity. I do think there is an injustice on his review of "The Logical Leap" because the book deserves better from an academician. But at this point, I am not outright condemning McCaskey because I don't see what he did that so upset Dr. Peikoff. His review on amazon.com came after Peikoff's letter, and he's been promoting Whewell for quite some time (as others have pointed out), so that doesn't seem to be the cause. But I also don't see anything written by him on Objectivism, so I can't judge that. So, I'm moderately against McCaskey given what I've said here and in this thread, but I'm not condemning him to hell either. Maybe he just doesn't see the value in "The Logical Leap."
  17. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from brian0918 in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Evidently I am being accused of being intellectually dishonest by the moderator board of this forum because I am saying that McCaskey is supporting Whewell over Peikoff and Harriman. But I am merely going by the public record. McCaskey gives very positive reviews of Whewell's work, but doesn't present the same high praise for "The Logical Leap" that was a joint effort by Peikoff and Harriman. As long as that record stands or isn't corrected, then I have no choice except to say that McCaskey is reviewing Whewell at a higher rating than Peikoff / Harriman.
  18. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from brian0918 in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I already have a huge backlog of good Objectivists books I want to read, so Whewell is not high on my list. I see no reason to rush out and read him especially with this controversy, as I think "The Logical Leap" solves the problem of induction and I can now move on to other things. But let me stress again, for the umpteenth time!! that I am not condemning McCaskey. He is not making Kantian arguments himself, and I don't have the evidence that he ever spoke out against Objectivism. By the same token, however, give his intellectual writings and his review of "The Logical Leap" I have no reason to befriend him either.
  19. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from The Wrath in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    When a historian of philosophy discovers a great new insight into his field of study, then yes, he should at a minimum add a large note on his website announcing "The Logical Leap" and Peikoff's course on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" have solved a very long standing problem in the history of induction. His review on amazon.com gives the book a short shrift as well. So no I won't be supportive of McCaskey until he is more supportive of "The Logical Leap."
  20. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from The Wrath in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Evidently I am being accused of being intellectually dishonest by the moderator board of this forum because I am saying that McCaskey is supporting Whewell over Peikoff and Harriman. But I am merely going by the public record. McCaskey gives very positive reviews of Whewell's work, but doesn't present the same high praise for "The Logical Leap" that was a joint effort by Peikoff and Harriman. As long as that record stands or isn't corrected, then I have no choice except to say that McCaskey is reviewing Whewell at a higher rating than Peikoff / Harriman.
  21. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from brian0918 in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    When a historian of philosophy discovers a great new insight into his field of study, then yes, he should at a minimum add a large note on his website announcing "The Logical Leap" and Peikoff's course on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" have solved a very long standing problem in the history of induction. His review on amazon.com gives the book a short shrift as well. So no I won't be supportive of McCaskey until he is more supportive of "The Logical Leap."
  22. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from bluecherry in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I don't know why West took down his post about the NoddleFood posting regarding the controversy, but I thank him for supplying the link. In that post there is a letter from David Harriman saying that he cannot support Whewell because Whewell was a 19th century Kantian. I have the same views on Whewell and do not understand why an Objectivist or a rational man would continue to support Whewell over Dr.Peikoff and David Harriman who have solved the problem of induction. So, I definitely see no reason to support McCaskey. But I will add that I cannot condemn him at this point since he doesn't seem to be promoting the Kantian aspects of Whewell. In other words, I am in the same position as before the NoddleFood post: I see no reason to support McCaskey on intellectual grounds and I don't see the evidence that he is a good Objectivist, his work at ARI and Anthem notwithstanding.

    Here's the link to the NoodleFood posting:

    http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html
  23. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from West in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    When a historian of philosophy discovers a great new insight into his field of study, then yes, he should at a minimum add a large note on his website announcing "The Logical Leap" and Peikoff's course on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" have solved a very long standing problem in the history of induction. His review on amazon.com gives the book a short shrift as well. So no I won't be supportive of McCaskey until he is more supportive of "The Logical Leap."
  24. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from West in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I didn't "omit" anything. I was concerned over the fair use of how much of the article I could quote from the SEP, and besides, it's arguments that Whewell was not a Kantian are not in terms of philosophical fundamentals.

    As to how McCaskey is supporting Whewell over Dr. Piekoff and Harriman, he is a professor of studies on induction and makes no reference to "The Logical Leap" on the front page of his website. If he was for Peikoff and Harriman, given his background, he would be fully supportive of their efforts and that they resolved the problem with induction. It's shameful that he is not more supportive of those Objectivist intellectuals.
  25. Downvote
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I don't know why West took down his post about the NoddleFood posting regarding the controversy, but I thank him for supplying the link. In that post there is a letter from David Harriman saying that he cannot support Whewell because Whewell was a 19th century Kantian. I have the same views on Whewell and do not understand why an Objectivist or a rational man would continue to support Whewell over Dr.Peikoff and David Harriman who have solved the problem of induction. So, I definitely see no reason to support McCaskey. But I will add that I cannot condemn him at this point since he doesn't seem to be promoting the Kantian aspects of Whewell. In other words, I am in the same position as before the NoddleFood post: I see no reason to support McCaskey on intellectual grounds and I don't see the evidence that he is a good Objectivist, his work at ARI and Anthem notwithstanding.

    Here's the link to the NoodleFood posting:

    http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html
×
×
  • Create New...