Zenphamy asked for an elevation of the discussion away from politics and more toward philosophy recently.

I know I said I was going to not be in the Gulch for a while. However, my university just hired Moti Mizrahi, and I am trying to understand him and his relationship or lack thereof to Objectivism. I talked with him very briefly today, after hearing that he was going to be our new philosophy of science professor. Just out of curiosity, I asked him who his favorite philosopher was. I was hoping he would say himself. He pointed to a philosophy professor also at my university that I did not yet know. Interestingly, he writes on his own web site, "There is no authority except yourself."

In one of Mizrahi's abstracts in the link above, Mizrahi writes,
"In this paper, I argue that the ultimate argument for Scientific Realism, also known as the No-
Miracles Argument (NMA), ultimately fails as an abductive defence of Epistemic Scientific
Realism (ESR), where (ESR) is the thesis that successful theories of mature sciences are
approximately true. The NMA is supposed to be an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)
that purports to explain the success of science. However, the explanation offered as the best
explanation for success, namely (ESR), fails to yield independently testable predictions ...".

http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com...
describes how Mizrahi debunks the argument for the existence of a deity based on the observation that Jews have survived despite thousands of years of persecution.

I was hoping to discuss Objectivism with Dr. Mizrahi, but I admit I need some help here, preferably from some of our philosphers. I know that expert opinion does not form the basis for good argumentation. In fact, that is the subject of one of Mizrahi's papers.

On to the 2nd question:
"Theory-ladenness of observation holds that everything one observes is interpreted through a prior understanding of other theories and concepts." from
http://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/qui...

Numerous web sites show philosophers (not Mizrahi) attempting to discredit Objectivism using this argument. After having read those attempts to discredit Objectivism, I find their arguments rather weak at discrediting Objectivism. Have people observed Objectivists who filter observations through an Objectivst lens? Even if true, this doesn't discredit Objectivism necessarily, but it would be a weakness that I want to avoid in my own life.

I am going to throw this one out there, but not further comment. I will let you debate this amongst yourselves, and learn some about a subject that I readily admit that I am no expert in.