Online chat with Drs. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

[JRoberts]

Why is it suspicious?

I never said it was.

it means that the speculation is the logical conclusion of what the other person said. I don't think that GC said or implied that ARI wants to modify the logs. People tend to get upset when they feel words are being put in their mouths.

Just because I came to a logical conclusion does not mean that I believe it-it is because I do not believe it that I questioned.

Also, how did I 'put words' in his mouth?

[MinorityOfOne]

Sorry, JRoberts. No, you didn't say anything of that sort; I should have read the thread more carefully.

[Tryptonique]

it is because I do not believe it that I questioned.

Why would you posit a hypothesis that you yourself don't actually believe?

It would make more sense to simply ask "Why does ARI want to approve the transcript?" instead of making a hypothesis that you don't even believe.

If you apply the logic you seem to be demonstrating...you might as well said:

"So ARI wanted to prevent the space aliens from reading the secret Snish code and kill anyone who opposed their will to power? "

because hey....you probably don't believe that statment either, but it is still a hypothesis you are throwing out on the table.

If you actually expect a response to every motive that you don't believe and want

refuted, then you are seriously wasting everyone's time.

There can only be one full and complete truth on what ARI's motives were. There can be infinite other non truths that you don't believe but could still possibly question.

See the flaw in your logic when you try to apply it?

What interests me more is when you put your whole post together:

Just because I came to a logical conclusion does not mean that I believe it-it is because I do not believe it that I questioned.

What I get is:

1) You came to a logical conclusion. If it is in fact truly logical you came to the conclusion rationally and with powers of intellect...not mysticism.

2) You don't believe the conclusion that by your OWN WORDS you came up with.

"Just because I came to a logical conclusion" means that you did in fact come up with a final verdict. How can you not believe it?

3) If you think your premise needs to be checked, that is fine. In this situation...the only reason your premise would be off the mark is if you lacked information (which GC or Bearster could provide). The easy answer is don't formulate a premise until you have adequate facts to support such a premise.

[Betsy]

Why would you posit a hypothesis that you yourself don't actually believe?

Because there is evidence to support it and none to the contrary. That doesn't mean there is enough evidence for certainty. When there isn't, a rational person questions further.

If you actually expect a response to every motive that you don't believe and want refuted, then you are seriously wasting everyone's time.

It isn't wasting MY time. I am happy to provide evidence to help someone confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis and reach a true and certain conclusion.

There can only be one full and complete truth on what ARI's motives were. There can be infinite other non truths that you don't believe but could still possibly question.

See the flaw in your logic when you try to apply it?

I can't see any flaws in logic. In fact, I think it makes sense to hypothesize AND question. Hypothesizing and experimenting (questioning reality) is the scientific method for arriving at non-contradictory identifications of reality and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It is the right approach even if you learn, as a result of questioning, that your hypothesis was false.

The easy answer is don't formulate a premise until you have adequate facts to support such a premise.

All you need for a valid hypothesis is some evidence in support of a conclusion and none to the contrary.

[Tryptonique]

Because there is evidence to support it and none to the contrary.

I didn't see any evidence that would point at ARI screening what it's employees say.

If there was, it is his obligation to provide it...seeing as he is positing a hypothesis that is quite accusatory in nature.

The lack of evidence was where my problem lies...not with the scientific method.

Trying to apply the scientific method to prove unicorns true (when there is no evidence of their existance) is a bastardization of that method.

Trying to posit an illogical hypothesis (one without any evidence at all) like "ARI is trying to screen what its employees say) is counterproductive and only leads to problems.

[Betsy]

I didn't see any evidence that would point at ARI screening what it's employees say.

If you look at the thread so far, you'll see that JRoberts never said they did. He ASKED if they did. Even if ARI does screen what its employees say, it is entirely proper for management to exercise control over its employees, particularly if they deal in ideas.

The lack of evidence was where my problem lies...not with the scientific method.

Observe how JRoberts dealt with his own lack of information. He began by asking "GC, why does ARI have to approve it?" That strikes me as the rational thing to do. He followed up with the question "So the board at ARI wanted to screen what their own employees say and possible "correct" things if need by?" and admitted "I'm still confused about this." JRoberts ASKED, he didn't conclude.

The response JRoberts question got was "If you use some basic logic, you wouldn't come to the conclusion that ARI had anything to hide." I see absolutely no evidence that JRoberts had formed any conclusion whatever, and there is no evidence he believed that ARI had something to hide.

Trying to posit an illogical hypothesis (one without any evidence at all) [...]is counterproductive and only leads to problems.

Indeed! Ditto for unsupported conclusions about other peoples' views and motives. Proper judgement of others should be based on evidence.

[y_feldblum]

Perhaps you, Tryptonique, are interpreting JRoberts' comment as a rhetorical question with a flourish to impugn, while you, Betsy, are interpreting it as an information question with a prod in the direction of some kind of answer. Would you say so?

[Betsy]

Perhaps you, Tryptonique, are interpreting JRoberts' comment as a rhetorical question with a flourish to impugn, while you, Betsy, are interpreting it as an information question with a prod in the direction of some kind of answer.  Would you say so?

I would say so, as far as my views are concerned, and I'll leave it to Tryptonique to speak for his. I do tend to interpret people's statements in the most charitable light assuming that, lacking evidence to the contrary, I am among friends here.

I apologize to Tryptonique if my reply was harsh, but I really get bent out of shape if I think someone is being judged unfairly.

[JRoberts]

I would like to explain a few things.

What Betsy stated was true. There is no need for me to repeat it.

As to Tryptonique, I do think that you judged me unfairly, BUT I did not wish to get into any kind of debate over it because of what I think your motives are. It seemed to me that you were fairly new to Objectivism, and that naturally you were trying to apply the ideas in certain aspects of your life. Because I made this judgement, I understood where you were coming from, and instead of replying harshly, I would have rather intended for you to reach your own conclusions on your own time.

I can not change your mind or make you think in any way. Only you can do that, and I have no intention of tearing you down or trying to tear down your zeal in these ideas. I would just caution you to be very careful in your judgements and thoughts. One of the greatest attributes you can learn is patience-and with patience comes wisdom and integration.

That being said, I wish you the best of luck in your studies of Objectivism, and desire that no hard feelings should exist between us.

[Tryptonique]

Even if ARI does screen what its employees say, it is entirely proper for management to exercise control over its employees, particularly if they deal in ideas.

Screening is perfectly fine as a company. If ARI had wanted to delete certain parts...that would be fine. It has every right to do so. If the chat is going to be a part of ARI's website or something that officially represents the institute (on this site or any other) then they have a right to excerpt parts or delete as they see fit.

I see that part as being like a film director or newspaper editor. Maybe some of the questions weren't really on target or irrelevant to ARI's purpose and so they delete them. That is their discretion 100% and rightfully should be left up to the institute.

I think some people (myself and GC) assumed that screening with the pupose of possibly "correcting" what was said was like the thought police asking Winston to rewrite history....or "fake reality" as Ayn Rand called it.

This correction would obviously mean that ARI would put words into the mouths of their employees that weren't actually said.

I think that is what GC meant when he said that the implication was that ARI would "lie about the transcript."

The reason why I personally came to this conclusion was due to the fact that there were quotes around the word "correct."

When people do the quote thingey around words it is a classic way of making a euphamism or implying double meaning.

Ayn Rand herself utilizes this tool in her essay Doesn't Life Require Compromise?(The Virtue of Selfishness page 68).

She uses quotes around the word "compromise" to designate two different (and contradictory meanings) of the word.

The presence of the quotes made me think that such a double meaning was intended.

If JRoberts had no double meaning to what he said....then that means that I misinterpreted him. If that is the case then I am very sorry.

So the board at ARI wanted to screen what their own employees say and possible "correct" things if need by?" and admitted "I'm still confused about this." JRoberts ASKED, he didn't conclude.

The way it was stated was like he had already concluded that the screening was indeed fact. Not only was the action ascribed (screening) but motive was attached as well (so they could correct any potential mess ups).

The phrase "I'm still confused about this "seems to refer to his speculation...as if he is confused by the facts he has ascribed to situation (without any warrant whatsoever I might add).

Otherwise...why wouldn't a logical person simply email ARI and ask why they wanted to approve the transcript? I'm sure they don't bite if you ask a question.

Why not ask Bearster or GC straight up, "Why did ARI want to screen the transcript?"

If they said, "I don't know...I can't speak on behalf of ARI" then instead of continuing to speculate, he should have then gone to ARI if it was really a matter of concern and not a time wasting flight into the realm of speculation that it turned out to be.

In fact...GC said that he didn't care to speculate about ARI's motives...which indicates that he didn't know what their motieves are (you don't have to speculate if you actually know...obviously )

Unless your questioning implies some sort of immorality or wrong doing...like "Why did you murder someone?" there is no reason to shy away from going to the source of a question.

As this discussion has revealed, there are logical and perfectly acceptable reasons for ARI to screen for the purpose of correction. After all, we edit our essays in college...and nearly every entertainment media has someone with the responsibility of editing.

So why not ask ARI or make your question more narrowed down (less speculation, more question)?

[Tryptonique]

I apologize to Tryptonique if my reply was harsh, but I really get bent out of shape if I think someone is being judged unfairly.

Harsh? Not in the least.

*grins.*

You seemed quite reasonable. I have seen some people that are utterly scathing and you didn't seem of that nature at all.

As to Tryptonique, I do think that you judged me unfairly

If I did...you have my full apologies. I didnt' see your post and Betsy's...but it just occured to me (as you can see in my last post) that I might have misread what you actually said (and meant).

I think I had my own reasons for doing so (such as the quote/euphamism thing) but the assumption was hasty nonetheless and immature.

My apologies, Jroberts.

-E

[JRoberts]

Apology accepted, and I wish you the best of luck in the future .

[DavidV]

I think some people (myself and GC) assumed that screening with the pupose of possibly "correcting" what was said was like the thought police asking Winston to rewrite history....or "fake reality" as Ayn Rand called it.

That was my assumption. If I was wrong, I apologize. At the time, I could not think of any other reasonable motivation for the question.

[Dismuke]

I think some people (myself and GC) assumed that screening with the pupose of  possibly "correcting" what was said was like the thought police asking Winston to rewrite history....or "fake reality" as Ayn Rand called it.

This correction would obviously mean that ARI would put words into the mouths of their employees that weren't actually said.

Except that I don't think the possibility of ARI "screening its employees" could even be applicable in this instance since the employee in question, Dr. Yaron Brook, happens to be the Executive Director - i.e., the top dog. He is the person that all of the ARI staff answers to - so any "screening" would basically involve Dr. Brook screening himself. Sure, he does answer to a Board of Directors. But there are very few organizations where a board of directors is going to actually meet and micromanage what is basically a matter of routine day-to-day operational minutia.

I can think of a number of potential reasons why ARI might want to review and approve such a transcript. One possibility strikes me as being extremely likely: rather than looking to edit out certain passages, my guess is that they might want the opportunity to add additional comments and clarifications to the transcript. One of the problems inherent with any live Q&A session is one's answers must be formulated extemporaneously - and such answers are NOT always going to be as precise as they would if the person had the time and opportunity to answer them in writing. I suspect that, because of the limitations and pitfalls of speaking extemporaneously, ARI may very well want the opportunity to look for potentially unclear or inadvertently misleading answers and to provide corrections and/or clarifications for inclusion on the permanent record. It is not at all uncommon for people who agree to be interviewed for print publications to request an opportunity to review the transcript and make corrections on what will be quoted.

I can also think of several other possibilities as to why ARI might want to review the transcripts - but mentioning them would be pointless and inappropriate speculation on my part.

[Capleton]

I have nothing against ARI at all and do not think they would in any way 'lie' or tamper with the transcript. I do not see in fact any reason why they would want to review it, which is why I asked. Please refrain from making such rash judgements on me without even knowing who I am.

The crux of matter is how ARI can verify that the transcript they have proof-read would be the one posted for public viewing. This all seems like ARI is doing it by the book; so to speak, it is their standard policy I reckon. To infer that ARI has some sinister plan to alter the transcripts is silly (note: I did not say you inferred anything). The person who initially asked “why” is being especially frivolous at this time.

Does any publishing house skip the editing phase, whether or no any revisions need to be made?

Does any organization attach its name to material provided by its employees without reviewing it first?

A does of Reason!

[DavidV]

It's up!

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000138.html