Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 35

Alleged "lack of rigour and limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter"
I reverted Peter Damien's edit regarding the Vallicella article where "lack of rigour and limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter" is used. Without the qualification "what he calls" it reads like established fact. It needs to be established that it's opinion. It's more journalistically accurate for the same reason the word "alleged" is used by news media in referring to someone suspected of criminal wrongdoing. Further, the term "lack of rigour" isn't clearly defined. Docsavage20 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with DocSavage here, and was going to post something but had to go to class. I would say that the solution is to say that Vallicella accuses her of a lack of rigour--that way it avoids the slightly weaselly sounding "what he calls" or "alleged" while still not appearing to be siding with Vallicella. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to revert for now. That is because I am working on a draft for that section which includes many more sources as to her lack of rigour and generally unsystematic approach. As to the two points raised.


 * The idea that 'lack of rigour' isn't clearly defined is absurd. 'Rigour' is a very clear concept often invoked in philosophical criticism.  Anyone who is involved with this article and this issue should Read Huemer on Rand where the logical flaws in her arguments are clearly and carefully exposed.  A 'rigorous' approach means explaining and justifying all assumptions where not self-evident (and even giving the benefit of the doubt), and taking due care and attention over traps such as logical fallacies and the like.  There is a pretty clear consensus among reliable and independent sources that Rand was not rigorous in this sense.
 * It is incorrect to say that all claims in Wikipedia must be prefaced by 'it is alleged that'. Read the policies on WP:RS and related subjects.  If a reliable and independent source says that p, we can say that p, not that 'reliable sources allege that p'.  Peter Damian (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what if reliable source A says p, and reliable source B says !p? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That issue is also covered in the policy. But we need reliable and independent sources showing that Rand's arguments and approach were rigorous, systematic &c.  Happy to consider such if you can produce them, naturally. Peter Damian (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There will inevitably be conflicts of "reliable sources". It's bad form to phrase a statement in a way that doesn't establish that it's someone's opinion and whose opinion it is, "reliable" source or not. There's no reason not to. It's not an editorial column, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia.Docsavage20 (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. It is not inevitable that there will be such conflicts, and generally for the subject matter of general-interest encyclopedias, reliable sources will always agree.  Reliable sources agree that the earth is flat, reliable sources agree on the date of Columbus' first voyage to the West Indies, and so on.  Sometimes reliable sources disagree, in which case we record this, according to WP:DUE.  But this begs the question.  You haven't produced any reliable sources showing or arguing that Rand's work is systematic, rigorous and so on.  Even philosophers sympathetic to her work admit she lacks these things.  If you disagree, please locate a source that supports your view.  And again, WP:NPOV is emphatic that we do not report RS as opinion.  We report them as fact.  That is most important. Peter Damian (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter Damian asserts that - "Reliable sources agree that the earth is flat" - Actually, today there's a growing number of academicians who contest this.


 * You say:"reliable sources will always agree." You also say - "Sometimes reliable sources disagree"  So which is it?


 * "And again, WP:NPOV is emphatic that we do not report RS as opinion." - It's emphatic about this? Really? From Neutral point of view:


 * When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.


 * Once again someone chants the "policy says" mantra when in fact, it's not quite the way they assert it is. Clarifying opinion as opinion is logical, fair and standard journalistic practice if you hold standards higher than supermarket tabloid rags.Docsavage20 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also meant to be accessible to a general audience. "Rigour" has a certain meaning within the philosophical (and mathematical) communities, namely that all i's are dotted and all t's crossed. Your average reader, however, will see the article saying that Rand lacks rigour as a negative judgment on the value of her work by the encyclopedia, one which per WP:NPOV we are not allowed to make. Tone and connotation must be considered as well as strict denotation when judging things for NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also incorrect. Nothing in WP:NPOV dictates that the encyclopedia cannot pass a negative judgment on a writer's work. It requires only that Rand's lack of rigour was a 'fact' where 'fact' means "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'  There is no serious dispute about Rand's lack of rigour.  The Routledge encyclopedia says that her political theory is "ill-thought out and unsystematic".  There are plenty of other sources that corroborate this - including many sources sympathetic to Rand.  I hope that clarifies the situation. Peter Damian (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the page you referenced in the Routledge encyclopedia, if this is a so-called "Reliable source" and this is representative of how it's written - it's accessible only by subscription - it's a condemnation of any guideline that allows it to be identified as reliable. What's on that page is an editorial, period. And not a particularly well-written one. To assert that she held "unremitting hostility toward the state" is slanted nonsense. She felt that government had legitimate functions but that its functions should be clearly defined with a proper philosophical basis. She felt hostility toward government encroachment into areas she believed it had no business being involved in. The last sentence "Despite her attack on altruism and insistence on the virtue of selfishness, her real concerns were the defence of the value of integrity (to the point of self-sacrifice) in the face of evil and moral despair" is just disjointed gibberish. "Despite" is used presumably to set up some conflict or hierarchical ordering among certain concepts that makes no sense. "the defence of the value of integrity (to the point of self-sacrifice)" - wth is that supposed to mean? It's a bunch of words mashed together that happens to incorporate some key terms she used. Banana mountain Fountainhead Howard Roark belly flop the bicycle.Docsavage20 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc, did you mean the Valicella pages or a different cite? For what it's worth, I think you're both going to the mat on an issue which is less important than it looks.  Rand's misunderstanding of Kant is indeed gross, and that's not a matter of opinion - she has Kant completely wrong.  As for a general lack of rigor, is this really where Rand needs to be defended? Many influential philosophers, and writers occupying a sort of hinterland between philosophy and religion or politics or criticism, have lacked rigor (in Peter's sense).  Nietzsche's main virtue, for example, is not his rigor. Unamuno and Shestov disdain rigor. I think it's going to be hard to find any serious, independent defense of Rand as a rigorous, systematic, disciplined philosophical thinker, for the same reasons it's hard to find anyone to argue that the world is (yep) flat. But one might almost say, so what? That's really not her claim to fame anyway.  Let's see what Peter has been drafting.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * "Doc, did you mean the Valicella pages or a different cite?" - If you're referring to my last para. where I refer to it as a badly written editorial, I was referring to the Routledge reference. "I think you're both going to the mat on an issue which is less important than it looks." - If one doesn't feel it's important separate editorial from fact.  "Rand's misunderstanding of Kant is indeed gross, and that's not a matter of opinion - she has Kant completely wrong." In your opinion. There are no doubt forums to make this argument, in the context of this article - if criticisms should be included at all in what's *supposed* to be a biographical summary - it should be identified as what it is - opinion. Docsavage20 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "opinion" is being used in a slippery way in this discussion. Of course it is my opinion, and Valicella's, that Rand is wrong about Kant. It's our opinion because that's what we think. But it's also my opinion that today is Wednesday. Opinion and fact are not polar opposites, otherwise one could never have an opinion about a matter of fact. As for the Routledge article, I thought it was very sympathetic to Rand.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Again, perhaps we could make progress if we can set aside the Rand factor and ask how this would be dealt with if it was just any philosopher/writer on Wikipedia. This is from Ludwig Wittgenstein:

"Described by Bertrand Russell as 'the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating'"


 * There's no urge there to add that it was Russell's "opinion", or that it was something Russell "alleged." Saying that Vallicella "describes" Rand's work as lacking rigour seems acceptable to me; any average reader will recognize both that it's Vallicella's opinion, and that he's asserting it as a matter of fact.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Vallicella "describes Rand's work as", states that, asserts, etc. etc. - something that clarifies that it's his opinion. The original wording included no such clarification.Docsavage20 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

??Take a look at the [diff]KD Tries Again (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * KD, the Damian version there is not neutral because it takes as fact a lack of rigour on Rand's part, and then says V is scathing about it. The Russell quote does no such thing - all the claims about Wittgenstein are clearly marked as opinion. Skomorokh  17:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With the best will in the world, I can't see the difference between "Described by Russell as..." and "On his blog, Kant scholar William Vallicella has been scathing in describing.." Is it just "scathing"?  What about "Described by Kant scholar WV on his blog as..."?  Does that make a difference?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * "Scathing" was my choice of words, I believe. The problem is referring to a lack of rigour disquotationally; there is a claim that Rand's work lacks rigour, and it should be made clear who is making that claim. Skomorokh  20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some lack of rigour in the arguments here also, I am afraid. Taking the relevant points in order


 * Why is my qualification of V's criticism as 'scathing' not neutral? Vallicella is indeed scathing (fact).  Why is his qualification itself not neutral, given he is a RS?
 * Docsavage is still misunderstanding the policy on the fact/opinion distinction. ""a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'"  This may be the policy card, I agree, but it is nonetheless policy.  Take it to arbitration and you will find out.
 * On whether Routledge is a reliable source, it is. You may disagree with it.  It may even be wrong.  That is beside the point. We report reliable sources, and mainstream academic consensus (recent arbcom ruling).  End of story.
 * In any case, I think a sample of reliable sources would be more useful and binding than Vallicella on his own, so give me some time ... Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're attempting to claim an application of "policy" where it doesn't apply. You made the unqualified statement that "WP:NPOV is emphatic that we do not report RS as opinion." which you've so far failed to back up. WHERE does it specifically, emphatically say that? I've pointed out that it most definitely does NOT say that. Contrary to what you're trying to smuggle in, "reliable source" is not synonymous with "immutable fact". There are certain measurable, calculable things that can be stated as fact because they're based on specific, repeatable, quantifiable standards. Chemical properties, distance between two points. You can even state that someone's work does in fact say thus and so because it's there in tangible form for all to see - assuming of course there's a chain of corroborating evidence that they actually wrote it. The authorship for example of Shakespeare's works apparently IS in question, as are certain musical compositions. It's someone's opinion that Rand's work "lacked rigor" or that she didn't understand philosophy. To say there "are some who are sympathetic to her position who believe she was wrong about such and such" doesn't constitute some kind damning proof that they're by default credible or correct. Their claim of being "sympathetic" can easily mean they're misguided about their grasp of either her work or the work of others they're saying she's wrong about. Even if someone is in total accord with her, their statements should be clearly identified as their statements. Docsavage20 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy here is WP:ASF, which begins "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" Skomorokh  20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No question Routledge is a reliable source. Reliable sources can be utterly wrong, but reliable sources they are.  Verifiability, not truth, as we must always remember.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * The utter abortion of the word "reliable" that seems to pervade Wikipedia aside, it would be proper to state that this source says this, not to assert it as fact.Docsavage20 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PD, when we say Vallicella has been scathing in describing her lack of rigor, it implies that Rand's lack of rigour is a fact that Vallicella is describing. Better to say that Vallicella has described Rand's work as lacking rigor, a la Russell on Wittgenstein. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. Skomorokh  20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would "Vallicella has scathingly described Rand's work as lacking in rigor" be a good compromise?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * "PD, when we say Vallicella has been scathing in describing her lack of rigor, it implies that Rand's lack of rigour is a fact that Vallicella is describing. " It does imply that, but since the lack of rigour is an assertion about which there is no serious dispute (among reliable and independent sources) it is (in Wikipedia terminology) a fact. Peter Damian (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Much babble here.


 * "Contrary to what you're trying to smuggle in, "reliable source" is not synonymous with "immutable fact". "  Wikipedia is not concerned with truth (or facts) but with what is verifiable.  Let me quote for the third time : By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" . You can find this very statement in the policy.  If you are unable to locate it, that suggests you are not familiar with the policy.
 * On the contrast between facts and opinions (as given by policy) a fact is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." An opinion (according to Wikipedia) is something about whcih there may be some serious dispute.
 * Note I don't particularly agree with some of these policies, in which the wording could be clearer. But policy is policy, and in any case I agree with the spirit of it (which is to ensure that what is in Wikipedia reflects mainstream academic opinion.
 * By the way, to those such as Skomorokh, who claims to have some sort of education, does anyone disagree that Wikipedia should reflect mainstream academic opinion? If you do, you are biting on granite.  Please don't.
 * "It's someone's opinion that Rand's work "lacked rigor" or that she didn't understand philosophy." Of course, but these opinions are those about there is no serious dispute.  Please understand this. If you agree there is no serious dispute, stop what appears to be trolling.  If you disagree, please produce reliable and independent sources that indicate otherwise. Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted
I said I wasn't going to right now, but I have changed my mind. Reverting to the reporting of Vallicella's 'opinion' as unqualified fact. I will be making further and extensive revisions to this section. Peter Damian (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I might add that if we are going to be picky about opinion and fact, there needs to be some qualification added to this:

She was greatly influenced by Aristotle and found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche, although she later rejected the latter's approach, holding it to be anti-reason. She was vociferously opposed to the views of Immanuel Kant, particularly his claim that reason is unable to know reality "as it is in itself."

Something along the lines of "what she took to be the views of Immanuel Kant". And I could support "what she wrongly took to be the views of Immanuel Kant". This is an example of an opinion which is also an incorrect opinion.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * This is hardly worth edit warring about. What Vallicella said is going to be in the article, and readers are going to take it for what it's worth.  Battling to include "asserted" or "claimed" is a real waste of energy.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * "Claim" is listed on Wikipedia's words to avoid list anyway. Best to use "argue". J Readings (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "observed (but some of us don't agree)"? Oh, that's on the list too.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * (^_^) I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. "Argue" is fine and to the point. "Assert" suggests that the cited author might be wrong-headed. Others suggest the verb "state", but I notice that quite a few high school students on Wikipedia use it to access, making an article sound a little odd. "Argue" seems like the way to go, and it's WP guideline compliant. J Readings (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, you raise an excellent point about Aristotle, Nietzsche and Kant. It's clear she /was/ inspired by Nietzsche. However, to say that she was influenced by Aristotle when many philosophers believe that, well, her understanding of Aristotle is pretty shallow seems problematic. The sentence on Kant also needs to be rewritten, given that it implies that WP endorses Rand's understanding of Kant. Something along the lines of "She developed a loathing for Immanuel Kant, who she believed to be fundamentally irrational and evil." TallNapoleon (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that I apparently reverted someone's talk page comment from here. I just want to apologize for that. It wasn't intentional, and in fact I wasn't even looking at the page. I must have been intending to do something else and my finger slipped. Yes, I know that's what they all say ... :-)  Anyway, sorry.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points on Aristotle and Kant. I have tried to fix that, using the Author's Note to Atlas Shrugged as a cite on Aristotle - we need a cite on Nietzsche, and someone may have something better on Aristotle.  It's important not to seem to adopt Rand's misunderstanding of Kant.  I'd like to see that quote from the naval academy speech go, as it doesn't do much credit to her, but I'm not going to fight about it.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Note: this led me to look at other Kant-related comments, and I found that supporters of Rand's interpretation included an accountant, who managed to produce such gems as "(Hume) said that things are contingently true, but that they could be otherwise." Not a reliable source.  [See above, #5]KD Tries Again (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * How about "Things are necessarily true, but could not be otherwise"? Peter Damian (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronald E. Merrill?
If I could be so bold as to ask the question: who is Ronald E. Merrill? He is quoted several times in this article without reservation leading one to think that he must be important. A glance at those notes tells us that he published a book entitled The Ideas of Ayn Rand. The publisher is Open Court Press (not "Full Court" as it is incorrectly stated in the article) -- a self-described publisher of "scholarly books in philosophy, Eastern thought, and comparative religion, and books for the general reader presenting intelligent, popular treatments of topics in popular culture, social problems, and contemporary issues." I've never heard of this publisher, but let that pass. Who is he? Is he an academic? Does he teach at a reputable accredited university? Is he just a writer of non-fiction for a general audience with one book on the subject to his name? Is he affiliated with one of the Objectivist institutes? What are his credentials and why is he quoted more than once in this article? To be fair, I have no problem giving a little bit more weight (and space) to genuine scholars writing on the subject. Tara Smith, for example, holds the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism at the University of Texas. She published several books on Ayn Rand-related subjects through Cambridge University Press, American Philosophical Quarterly, etc. But this Merrill gentleman is an entirely separate question of undue weight. J Readings (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to find much about him at all, which does not speak well for his notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merrill has degrees in chemistry, and some publications on small business management (see here.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Sciabarra (who is unlikely to have missed anything important) gives the following blurb:

"The late Ronald E. Merrill is author of The Ideas of Ayn Rand (Open Court, 1991), and co-author of The New Venture Handbook (AMACOM, 1993) and Raising Money (AMACOM, 1990). His publications on Objectivism include "Axioms: the Eightfold Way," Objectivity 2(2), 1 (1995). The Merrill review sparked an interesting exchange on the now defunct "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy" mailing list. For another perspective on the Merrill review, see, for instance, Daniel Ust's "Dialectical Objectivism:  An Answer to Ronald Merrill," which first appeared on MDOP."


 * It appears that Merrill is not an academic but an independent scholar of some standing. I'm not familiar with Objectivity, but perhaps that counts for something wrt WP:SPS. Another point is that The Ideas of Ayn Rand is released by Open Court Publishing Company, a reputable scholarly publisher. I'm not familiar with their peer-review system either I'm afraid, but those are the directions we should be looking in to assess his reputability. Skomorokh  15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I found an essay of Merrill's here. It contains this interesting statement:


 * In Aristotelian philosophies, the correspondence idea of truth is used; that is, truth is congruence to reality (cf. Jetton 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). In the context of discussion of axioms, this means that they are more than subjectively true. 

Can anyone spot the obvious logical error in this? Peter Damian (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM etc. etc. ad nauseum. Write a paper about it and get it printed, then maybe it will have some relevance to an encyclopaedia. Skomorokh  16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its relevant to a test of notability.  There is a danger of double standards here Skomorokh, a noted philosopher and Rand expert writing on a blog is to be dismissed according to your comments below, but a chemist and popular business writer is to be accepted as an expert simply on the basis of his publisher?   Stretching things a bit I would have thought.  --Snowded (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to write a paper. This is an elementary logical error, I wonder if Skomorokh, who claims to be an expert about something, can tell us what it is. And as S. says, it's a test of notability. Also, read the rest of Merrill's article.  There is nothing here to write a paper on.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, both of you, stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't claimed anyone be dismissed or accepted, nor that I am an expert. Damian's comment above is not a suggestion for the improvement of the article, simple as. Furthermore, notability is not a limitation on article content, only on topical inclusion i.e. Michael Huemer is not notable (apparently), but it would be foolish to dismiss him as a source on that ground alone. Skomorokh 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a suggestion for the improvement of the article. The quote above shows that Merrill has made an elementary logical blunder (indeed two).  The rest of the piece is full of similar schoolboy errors.  That suggests he is not a reliable source.  And that in turn suggests he is not appropriate to be quoted on Rand.  Surely you can make that connection, Skomorokh?  As to the blunders.  Merrill begins his brief argument with an appeal to the correspondence theory of truth: that it is congruence with reality.  But if that is so then (1) it is pointless to distiguish between truth and 'subjective truth' as he then does, for if the correspondence theory is correct, all truth is objective truth.  Indeed, the notion of 'subjective truth' is a contradition.  Furthermore (2) this does not explain why axioms are any more objective than non-axioms, as he clearly implies.  If the correspondence theory is correct, then the proposition that the earth goes round the sun (which is not an axiom) is 'more than subjectively true'.  The proposition that 5+7 (which is not an axiom) is 'more than subjectively true', and so on.  His argument proves nothing about axioms that it does not prove about any truth whatsoever, how trivial.  This is not the sort of mistake that is in any way controversial.  It is simply an elementary mistake that absolute beginners in philosophy are likely to make.  The rest of his essay, particularly the part starting with the section "An Organization of Axioms" is simply an embarrassment.  Peter Damian (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I opened a can of worms. My original question was regarding the repeated citation of Ronald Merrill as a notable source. I never questioned the reliability of Open Court Publishers. Now, Peter has gone to the opposite extreme and completely deleted *all* mentions of Ronald Miller's book in the article. That also goes a bit too far, IMHO. Unless someone can demonstrate that Miller is worth citing more than once, I see no reason to use his book repeatedly. That was my original point and the reason I was asking about Miller's credentials. J Readings (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you have reminded me I didn't remove all reference to Merrill. I have now done so.  Merrill is not a reliable source, period.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Peter Damian (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Open Court Press is a reliable source, Peter. Please see the guidelines. The real question is whether Merrill's work, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, merits more than one citation. Completely censoring the book from the article is never a good idea, is not something Wikipedia is about, and was never something that I advocated. J Readings (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fuck care if Open Court Press is a reliable source or not. The question is whether any work by Merrill is a reliable source.  I'm not relying just on my judgment here. I have given enough links here for any reasonably competent person to judge that it is not.  Read carefully my comments above.  Also, it is absurd to claim that this is 'censoring' Wikipedia or its sources.  The question is whether X is a reliable source.  If it isn't, we don't use it at all, let alone once.  Sorry to lose my patience. Peter Damian (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, please -- you don't need to speak to me (or anyone else) that way on Wikipedia. It's inappropriate and rude. This is not a bar and I'm not a drunken hooligan looking to pick a street fight. The reliable source guidelines are quite clear as to what sources can be cited and simply needs to be balanced against guidelines and policies of equal (if not more) importance. One's personal judgments about Merrill's published book (i.e., The Ideas of Any Rand) based on a separate unpublished article (i.e., Solo -- appears to be an Objectivist-affiliated blogging center where people "post" things) is irrelevant. My original concern was simply one of weight. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm inclined to agree with Peter on this. I have hardly been able to find anything about Merrill (this old press release was the most I was able to turn up) and frankly, Open Court Press has some very dubious looking titles (Philosophy and Zelda... really?). There have to be better sources than this guy available. Sciabarra for one, Smith for another. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with using sources that are not "independent" if they have gained some degree of academic standing and recognition, as Smith very clearly has, as long as they are indicated as such.

I would also like to point out that it is important to maintain civility. Skomorokh and Readings are among the most eminently reasonable editors I have ever had the privilege to work with. Peter you're evidently very smart, but you should really work on being more civil to other editors here, especially in an article that has had as unpleasant a history as this one has. There are lots of grey areas on Wikipedia, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you should get angry with them. This also goes for some of the other editors on this page, and it's something I need to work on, too. However, it would be nice if we could all try to make this a more relaxed and enjoyable editing environment. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already apologised (by striking out my comment and apologising for loss of patience). Skomorokh does not strike me by any stretch a reasonable editor.  Readings does on the whole, but he was not being reasonable just then.  "because someone disagrees with you does not mean that you should get angry with them. " I object to that remark: I have no problem at all with someone disagreeing with me, but please do so on reasonable and well-argued grounds.  I got mad above because I had already made it clear that I was not objecting to Open Court as a reliable source, but Merrill himself.  Having already said that and having made my point, Readings comes again with the same point.  That is not being reasonable.  Answer my point, address the objections I made, directly, and don't shift your ground, obfuscate, change tack or whatever and we will be fine.  That is what I mean by being reasonable.  In turn I will try and be civil.  But note I don't give a big deal about the whole civility thing.  More important is adherence to Wikipedia neutrality policies, cogent argument and, again, a reasonable approach.  thanks Peter Damian (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually on reflection I find your implication that I get angry because people disagree with me (which is a deeply unpleasant and horrible personal characteristic) an extremely rude and uncivil comment. As I said, I do get angry when people don't follow the rules, but only then.  I want some challenge, please give some, but on appropriate grounds. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside assessment?
I can see the strength in both the argument that The Ideas of Ayn Rand is (a) unreliable because Merrill is not a credentialed scholar as far as we have been able to make out and (b) reliable because it has been published by a reputable academic publisher. I don't read WP:RS as decisive one way or the other here, so I suggest we pose the question at the relevant noticeboard and let experienced outside editors judge the issue. Thoughts? Skomorokh 12:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I didn't know there was such a noticeboard. --Karbinski (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to suggest the noticeboard when I logged on to Wikipedia the next time around, but evidently Skomorokh beat me to it. The noticeboard should be used more often. Regards, J Readings (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you both see value in this. J, as the editor who first took interest in the question, would you like to present the issue to the noticeboard? Skomorokh  13:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not follow my elementary arguments above that show he is incompetent? The mistakes he made are not the sort you would write about in scholarly journals.  They are the sort you laugh about.  You don't have to trust me as an expert judge of these matters.  Any reasonable person reading Merrill's work (linked to above) could make this judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh -- sure, I'd be happy to raise the issue with the noticeboard. Unfortunately, it's now 10:32pm in Tokyo, Japan. I'm very tired, actually, and I'm going to bed (forgive me). I'll pick up this issue on the noticeboard first thing tomorrow morning when I'm wide awake. Good night all, J Readings (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No rush, no worries. Good night, Skomorokh  13:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Binswanger quote
I have removed the following statement: "In contrast, another associate of Rand, Harry Binswanger has argued in The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts that natural selection exemplifies Rand's understanding of biological activity."

This quote simply doesn't make sense, and I can see no possible way to interpret the sentence so that it would actually 'contrast' the criticism to which it purports to be responding. It seems to be nothing more than an irrelevant (and nonsensical) attempt to insert a response to a criticism. CABlankenship (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good riddance--it's yet another attempt to water down criticism, and it's not relevant to the criticism it was intended to rebut anyway. Whether "natural selection exemplifies Rand's understanding of biological activity" has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether Rand actually understood or accepted evolution, and furthermore it is a fringe view anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical criticism
First attempt at a proper section with a proper thread (as opposed to a list of assertions) is to take the sources cited and classify them in some way. See below. This makes it much clearer how Rand's writing lacked rigour (indeed, lacked even a basic understanding of her subject matter), and makes it easier to combine into prose. Note how very different philosophers seem to be in broad agreement about how her writing was unrigorous and unsystematic and (fundamentally) unphilosophical.

MH = Michael Huemer NB = Nathaniel Branden BV = William Vallicella BW = Brandon Watson RN = Robert Nozick


 * She makes claims and assumptions that she is unable to support
 * Many of her claims are simply arbitrary declarations. (MH)
 * Her arguments rest squarely on her intuitions. (MH)
 * She offers no argument for the position on which her ethics is based, making only a bald assertion (MH)
 * She doesn't even explicitly state some assumptions, indeed, she seems simply not to have noticed that she was assuming them (MH)
 * She makes no effort to document her claims and they are in fact impossible to document because not true. (MH)
 * Her writing reads like blogscript, loosely argued if argued at all, and sprinkled with a sizeable admixture of ranting and raving. (BV)
 * She often confused her own opinions with facts (BW)
 * Came up with formulations that were muddled, confused, and simplistic, which she insisted on taking as clear demonstrations of reason. " (BW)


 * She commits elementary logical fallacies
 * Makes question begging arguments. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. But one of the required premisses for that proof essentially just is ethical egoism! (MH)
 * She draws plausibility for her position by attacking straw men. (MH)
 * She attempts to squeeze controversial metaphysical assertions out of a mere logical axiom. (BV)
 * Her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of begging the question. (RN)


 * She does not understand her subject matter
 * She refers to philosophers that she does not identify, and probably does not identify them because she did not know. (MH)
 * She was very ignorant of the history of her subject. This explains, in part, why her ethics is so flawed. (MH)
 * She seriously misrepresents the history of ethics. (MH)
 * Her description of the history of ethics is a gross caricature, and she makes no effort to document her claims with any citations. (MH)
 * Her views on Kant are a travesty even for someone with a basic acquaintance with Kant’s actual views (BV)
 * She gives no evidence of understanding the main problem with which Kant grappled (of securing objective knowledge of nature faced with Humean scepticism) (BV)
 * Rand probably never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (NB)


 * Her formulations are unclear and ambiguous
 * Lacks clarity, and makes statements for which a number of conflicting interpretations are possible. (MH)
 * She makes illegitimate shifts between equivocal interpretations (MH)
 * She gives no criteria for the classifications she makes. (MH)
 * She uses fudge words: i.e. words that can be interpreted to mean whatever it is convenient for them to mean at a particular time, and which can be used to insulate her thesis from testing and to enable her to claim that her theory supports, or doesn't support, anything; since there is no precise and unambiguous definition of these terms. (MH)
 * She runs together separate and distinct ideas in one and the same sentence - "a sure sign of a sloppy thinker". (BV)
 * Her famous axiom "Existence exists", conflates three distinct propositions: (BV)
 * She was an "astonishingly sloppy thinker" (BV)
 * She was the victim of hasty generalization. (BV)


 * She was fundamentally unreasonable
 * She thinks her theory, as she sets it out, is an exact science, but this claim would not withstand a casual acquaintance with any actual exact science. (MH)
 * She represents her intuitions and philosophical theories as 'scientific proofs,' and then derides the philosophical theories of others for being unscientific and therefore 'mystical.' (MH)
 * She lacked the teachableness that makes us recognize when we need to do a bit of serious revision. (BW)

"Rand illustrates the perils of being an amateur philosopher. By the way, the difference between a professional and an amateur philosopher is not the difference between one who makes money from philosophy and one who does not. It is the difference between one whose work meets a certain standard of competence and rigor, and one whose work does not. Spinoza and Schopenhauer were professional philosophers despite their not making money from philosophy; Ayn Rand and plenty of hack philosophy teachers are amateurs who nonetheless made money from philosophy. "

Peter Damian (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the proposal, this is a productive way of moving forward, I think. Some issues:
 * It's going to be difficult to present all this in context in a way that accessible to a reader unfamiliar with Rand's writings. Perhaps this should be narrowed down a little. See for comparison the criticism in featured articles of philosophers at Søren_Kierkegaard, Hilary_Putnam. If we are going to list, for example "Her famous axiom "Existence exists", conflates three distinct propositions: (BV)", that axiom and what Rand meant by it will need to be explained. This is not an insurmountable issue, but will take some thought.
 * The list above seems only to include negative critical reaction, which is not appropriate for a neutral entry. Obviously, a lot of people saw value or insight in Rand's philosophy - why is this? Why were well-educated intelligent people drawn to her thought? What is Rand's contribution exactly?
 * While we seem mostly agreed that in certain cases self-published sources are acceptable, no section should rely primarily upon them; the issue of weighting should be considered. Skomorokh  12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Skomorokh here. The Michael Huemer piece -- while interesting -- was never published in a peer-reviewed journal or book. It cannot be used in its current state regardless of how interesting it is UNLESS it can be shown that Huemer has published on Rand in third-party sources before. Valicella is allowed because he is a world-renowned Kant scholar, though it's a little strange how the cited material in its current form doesn't directly indicate that. The Robert Nozick piece is fine (because it was published), but I haven't read the Branden and Watson pieces yet. No idea where they were published. J Readings (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article as a whole needs to indicate, in a balanced way, that Rand is an enormously popular author who has had an impact on society, I strongly disagree that the judgment of her philosophical work needs to be neutral. That would misrepresent what the reliable sources say.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * The article does a reasonable job of indicating popularity and influence, but what I think is missing are the aspects of her philosophy that are its cause; an article that described her popularity and impact before only presenting negative opinions on her would fundamentally fail to explain the topic at hand. On the second point, neutrality is absolutely not optional in an encyclopaedia; to give a wholly negative presentation of Rand's reception would not at all be representative of the reliable sources. Skomorokh  15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you set the not optional in context, I think you'll see the nub of our disagreement: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Emphasis added.) This is why the MacGonagall article, for example, is "scathing" about his poetry - all serious sources condemn it. As Peter has said above, anyone who wishes to balance the overall negative view of Rand's philosophy in the reliable sources needs to produce some reliable sources to the contrary.  It's become increasingly clear, as we've examined the citation section, that boosters for Rand's philosophical work (other than Peikoff, who is scarcely independent) tend to be accountants, chemists or bloggers with no academic record.  I'd just add that we may be using "philosophy" in slightly different ways here - I wholly agree that her philosophy in the sense of her world-view or attitude to life has been appealing and influential, and the article mustn't shrink from acknowledging and explaining that.  I think Peter's comments here, and mine, are focussed on her technical skill in defending her world-view through philosophical argument (and her desperately poor grasp of the history of the subject). I strongly oppose trying to present a "neutral" view in this area, because the reliable sources just aren't neutral about it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Assuming the CV posted by Huemer at his websiteis legitimate, I see no problem with the source. The Rand critique is posted on a blog, but as with Valicella, it's a blog by an author with authoritative publications on ethics (etc) with reputable philosophical publishing houses (Routledge) and peer-reviewed journals.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was going to reply earlier, but more recent replies have covered most of what I would have said, except that Huemer, Vallicella and Watson also praise Rand in a qualified way. They all seem to agree that Rand had some interesting ideas, and that if she had tried to develop them in a more systematic and rigorous way, she might have developed a useful philosophical system. These points should also be made. Not for the reason that all negative comments should be balanced by positive ones (that would be bad, for the reasons already given above), but for the reason that all reliable sources must be reflected, and any significant divergence recorded, where it exists. I will do some more work over the weekend. A third section (the first two sections being negative and positive views from established but independent philosophers respectively) should be on the views of established but non-independent philosophers, i.e. philosophers who have received grants or fellowships from the Rand institute, such as Tara Smith. Peter Damian (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a good point in that putting criticism in context is more important than including positive content. I agree that not "all negative comments should be balanced by positive ones", as we have seen what that has done to the neutrality of the article, but at the same time having the article turn into a coatrack for "why Ayn Rand is a terrible philosopher" would be a serious step away from objectivity. Skomorokh  17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue not to follow your logic or reasoning. If reliable sources say that Ayn Rand is a terrible philosopher, and if there is no serious dispute about whether she is or isn't, and if that is a notable and important fact about Rand (as it surely is) then that is what we say.  Have you not yet grasped this point?  What do 'Coatracks' have to do with it?  Peter Damian (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On the claim that "It cannot be used in its current state regardless of how interesting it is UNLESS it can be shown that Huemer has published on Rand in third-party sources before." This happens to be fallacy no. 8 of my recent essay about how people misunderstand the Wikipedia neutrality policy. If we really did have such a rule, that would allow proponents of all sorts of fringe theories to disallow negative but self-published comments by mainstream academics to be disallowed, on the grounds that they hadn't independently published any work on the fringe theory. But if Huemer has published pieces like “When Is Parsimony a Virtue?” in as august a publication as The Philosophical Quarterly, that qualifies him to pronounce on Rand's theory of ethics, in my view. Besides, Huemer is in fact an expert on Rand. Furthermore, he explained to me in a letter that the piece linked to has actually been published (in a slightly different form) in a reliable source. I will locate the reference. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Locating the ref would be helpful. I wouldn't agree that publishing work on virtue ethics necessarily qualifies one as an expert on Rand, but I don't think we have to worry about Huemer's knowledge of the topic. Skomorokh  17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper: "Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?" Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 3 (2002): 259-88. One of a number of papers Mike has published in this journal. He wrote to me "Many intelligent people, who otherwise could do good thinking about ethics, are taken in by [Rand's] theory, and it prevents them from making progress in ethics (and perhaps in philosophy). I didn't want to just pooh-pooh it, or just assert a contrary view; I wanted to go through the argument step by step and explain very carefully where I thought all the flaws were. So you could describe that as taking her article more seriously than most academics would."  Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS You say above that many intelligent people have been impressed by Rand. We can include Mike here: "In my own view, Rand had some important ideas that are interesting to discuss. I think her novels show some real insight into human nature and how society works, and I think her political theories are basically right. She also, unfortunately, suffered from insufficient knowledge of the philosophical literature, insufficient training, a tendency to oversimplify, and a severe uncharitableness towards others. "  Peter Damian (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite charitable of Professor Heumer to say that she displayed "severe uncharitableness towards others". She put blame on the Utilitarians for the holocaust. This is closer to terms such as "deranged" and "hysterical" than simply "severe uncharitableness".  Sorry if this post is inappropriate, feel free to delete. I feel that exaggerations such as these from Rand make it very difficult to take her seriously as an intellectual.CABlankenship (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Huemer qualifies, then, but I do want to emphasize that what's important is not Huemer's expertise on Rand, but his expertise in philosophy and ethics in particular. Otherwise one would have to adopt the absurd position that, had Rand produced theories in linguistics or biology, neither Noam Chomsky nor Richard Dawkins would have standing to critique those essays unless they were authorities on Rand - their expertise in linguistics and biology would, on that view, be irrelevant.  Again, I agree with Peter that it is possible that an objective, balanced and indeed neutral view of Rand's skill in philosophy is that she doesn't have much, just as it's perfectly objective and neutral to observe that MacGonagall was a lousy poet.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Thanks KD that is precisely the point. I think repeating it like this is finally convincing some of our friends of the merit of this approach. Peter Damian (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why have the following names been excluded? AB = Andrew Bernstein AG = Allan Gotthelf EL = Edwin A. Locke LP = Leonard Peikoff TS = Tara Smith --Karbinski (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the proposal here? That that bullet point list above be made into an article section? --Karbinski (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the proposal, but happy if anyone can obtain more reliable and independent sources. Locke is wholly unreliable, so is Peikoff.  The others I don't know enough about.  Tara Smith seems to be an established philosopher, but I am suspicious about the grant from the Rand foundation.  No Rand-sponsored philosopher can be regarded as independent.  Peter Damian (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposal is a non-starter as a pure POV push. The proposal is a non-starter as article sabotage. I'm not denying any facts about criticism of AR, I have simply evaluated your proposal in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:STYLE --Karbinski (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you not followed any of the arguments above? And if you accept the criticism of Rand from reliable sources, why is the proposal a non-starter? Peter Damian (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit] If you accept the argument that the article about William McGonagall should not be neutral about whether he was a notably bad poet, then you accept the argument that the article about Rand should not be neutral about whether she was a notably bad philosopher. Or is it that you do not accept she was a notably bad philosopher? Then why on earth do you say you are not denying any of the criticism of Rand in the draft?  You are being inconsistent. Peter Damian (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the proposal to modify this article. That I'm not denying any facts about criticism of AR, does not mean I endorse your - I'm sorry did you say 'draft' - list as an accurate survey.  Are you unable to report that Ayn Rand is considered a bad philosopher in a verifiable, NPOV manner as one would expect to read in an encylopdia article?  I'm thinking something along the lines of "a number of philosophers consider Ayn Rand a bad philospher."  ... --Karbinski (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given a link below to the proposed section. Here it is again. Peter Damian (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - okay, so now we actually know what is being proposed. A lot of the draft hangs on a personal web page.

As for being OR, something like

--Huemer claims that "Her description of the history of ethics is a gross caricature, and she makes no effort to document her claims with any citations."--

is reported as "her limited philosophical reading meant she hardly understood her subject matter. She refers to philosophers that she does not identify, and probably does not identify them because she did not know. (MH) She was very ignorant of, and hence misrepresents, the history of ethics. (MH)." --Karbinski (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Huemer's essay carefully so that you can identify the exact sources. Everything is in there.  As for the 'personal web page', it has already been agreed in principle that, where a philosopher is rarely discussed in reliable sources, it is OK to use a self-published source by an author who is otherwise a reliable source.  This is important.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS You really might learn something about proper philosophy from Huemer. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person.  You just need to study some proper philosophy, to see how it's done.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How cute Damian. You seem like the kind of person who would disrupt discussion with back-handed compliments - a personal attack with the lightest touch. --Karbinski (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to the draft. Its mostly OR, reliable sources clearly validate the information presented, not require the reader to do their own OR.  As for the webpage, the concensus is that we should be careful - as MH is a regular for JARS, it would seem his personal webpage is to JARS as Damian's draft is to the Ayn Rand article. --Karbinski (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have revised the draft with exact quotes from Huemer. I was amused by the 'requirement for the reader to do their own OR'.  I.e. read something intelligent. Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted above, if you check Huemer's CV at the site, he's a heavyweight authority, with publications in a string of top-level, peer-reviewed journals.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

WP:BRD cycle begins after an edit is made
This entire proposal is an attempt to dodge WP:BRD. Go ahead and make the edit Damian. --Karbinski (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think boldness is a good idea here; you yourself have identified concerns with the draft. Let Damian develop it until he is satisfied with it, and then we can see about integrating the useful elements into the article. Skomorokh  19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)