What is the philosophy of Moti Mizrahi, new FIT professor? Is Objectivism theory-laden?
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.
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.
I've probably got all of the Rand stuff in their originally published form. Only because I was in the same position you are in but from '58 onward. A.R. was brilliant. what she wrote changed lives and illuminated the shadows cast by most modern philosophers. But she was just a human being, and as such was no goddess. Be careful not to deify her because her philosophy is so powerful. I'm sure that almost everyone in the Gulch has had their lives greatly influenced by her.
Do you see any spontaneous order in nomadic tribes of Africa? Or the head hunters in the south pacific?
and graduated from there. I'm thinking 'small
world' .... in a far out sense!
Ray Kurzweil has a extensive discussion of spontaneous order and concludes it is interesting, but it never gets beyond a certain threshold.
Technology in New York City! Boy, what a
stretch!
I just yesterday saw 1961 and 1962 of AR's FFH talks and also just finished "THE AYN RAND COLUMN" book of her articles that appeared in the LA times in 1962. If I had any doubts what so ever about Objectivism and the incredible brilliance of Ayn Rand reading and listening to her from almost 60 years ago was enough to solidify my belief that Objectivism is singularly the only philosophy for one to live by. All of what I read and heard applies to what is going on today in our sorry world.
jbrenner says this fellow didn't have much knowledge of Rand and he is considered a teacher of philosophy(?) so I discount the man in the field of philosophy completely, he offers nothing but gibberish.
Thank you for posting this and starting the discussion. This set of comments is much more interesting to me than the usual venting of helpless outrage at politicians or numerous attempts to prove Ayn Rand wrong in denying the existence of gods.
Again, thank you very much.
P.S. Did you notice that there is not a single ad hominem in these comments?
What a potboiler piece of crap. What loving father would put his kids through that? Like the wise old rabbi said, "I know we are the Chosen People, but please dear God, next time, please choose someone else."
I agree, BUT
Humanity is so diverse and complex that no single set of truths will cover it all. If this guy has new insights, or truths, I'd be interested in them. Also, because he has a reputation, I want to know what he says even if he's full of crap, because that lets me know what's going on currently. From your posts, I know you are an intelligent person, so don't let yourself become concretized. Keep an open mind and mental tentacles reaching out in the world.
We have this problem in patent law, where people try to argue that an invention is defined by how it was arrived at. That is irrelevant to the question of whether something is an invention. In this case the question is about whether a conclusion can be justified by induction. Whether the person used the right inductive method to originally come to the conclusion is much less important.
Load more comments...