Rand failed to deal with evolution. Why?
Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
Festinger’s Question comes from his famous 1956 book, "When Prophecy Fails." Suppose (1) an individual believes something with his whole heart and soul; (2) he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; and (3) he is then presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, evidence he himself fully accepts as true, that his first belief is wrong. Festinger’s question is: What will happen?
The answer, well documented by six decades of subsequent research, shows people respond to dissonant beliefs by using three key strategies.
First, they can ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression. We Objectivists recognize this as subjectivism, holding the primacy of consciousness to be true, instead of the primacy of existence.
Second, they can reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.
Third, they can make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization. Michael Shermer calls it “motivated reasoning.”
What Festinger did not expect, was people did not question their beliefs. Quite the opposite. Researchers were astonished to find people became stronger in their irrational beliefs after having been presented with unequivocal and undeniable evidence the subject himself fully accepted as true. For example, if they believed in the flat earth, then were presented with the undeniable evidence of the spherical planet, they became stronger in their flat earth belief.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.
This explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs, both of which are drilled into children from the time they are born.
One may easily say, “every belief should be open to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence,” but attempting to live up to that standard is difficult and takes a concentrated effort.
Which brings me to Ayn Rand.
A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa [Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet. Chapter 1, “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 28. Sorry, my copy is so old there is no ISBN. Rand also said this in the August 1970 issue of “the Objectivist” at page 3. Yes, I have the original copy I subscribed to and got in 1970.] and humans have no instincts. [Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. P. 1013. Again, my copy is pre-ISBN. Hell, even my Spanish copy is pre-ISBN.]
The Theory of Evolution holds humans are not born tabula rasa and we do have instincts. Instinctive behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism to act in a particular manner. An instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern in which a sequence of actions are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. For example, a dog shaking water from wet fur.
The role of instincts (genetically determined behaviors) in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system, the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and instincts play a lesser role.
Do humans have instincts? The answer is, in 2016, clearly yes. Humans seem to be mentally “hardwired” regarding many observable activities, such as the False Positive or False Negative responses to signs of danger such as the rustling of shrubs ahead. Is the rustling from the wind or a predator?
Humans tend to elect the false positive, which means we fear the worst, but the rustling is only the wind and we go on to make love and make babies. The species continues. Animals which selected a false negative, the ones who thought it was the wind when in truth the rustling was a predator, were lunch for the predator. They did not make love and have babies. The species ends. Natural selection.
These are dissonant cognitions. As Rand points out in Atlas, if there are two sides, at least one is wrong (both may be wrong, but one must be wrong if the positions are mutually exclusive). How did Rand resolve the problem? She refused to take sides. “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Ayn Rand Letter, Vol II, No. 17, May 21, 1973. We are talking 1973, not 1873, and Rand does not take a stand on one of the most important discoveries in history. Incredible.
In my research I did not find Rand even mentioned Darwin. I am not the first to discover this omission. Neil Parille, in his essay, “Ayn Rand and Evolution” (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...) presents an interesting explanation of why.
As time went on Rand and her lap dog Peikoff seemed driven more deeply into her tabula rasa and lack of instincts beliefs. This comports with the findings of Festinger. I think she was smart enough to know better but was unable to cope with the evidence due to cognitive dissonance.
This leaves Rand as (1) an individual who believes something with her whole heart and soul; (2) has taken irrevocable actions because of it by publishing her thoughts to the world and her followers; and (3) refused to even examine evidence to the contrary.
What would possibly drive Rand to ignore the theory of evolution, which was the most culturally changing theory in history, placing science before religion and illustrating religion’s claims for creationism to ring hollow?
Did she (1) say I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true; (2) reduce the importance of the conflicting belief and say “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider; or (3) try to make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict; or (4) what?
To me, Rand selected door number 2: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” In doing so, she reneged on a fundamental principle of her own philosophy: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of realty.” Atlas, at pages 1016-1017.
Here us the question I ask the Gulch: In failing to deal with evolution, did Rand abdicate her mind and evict herself from the realm of reality? Or, is there some other explanation for her omission?
The answer, well documented by six decades of subsequent research, shows people respond to dissonant beliefs by using three key strategies.
First, they can ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression. We Objectivists recognize this as subjectivism, holding the primacy of consciousness to be true, instead of the primacy of existence.
Second, they can reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.
Third, they can make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization. Michael Shermer calls it “motivated reasoning.”
What Festinger did not expect, was people did not question their beliefs. Quite the opposite. Researchers were astonished to find people became stronger in their irrational beliefs after having been presented with unequivocal and undeniable evidence the subject himself fully accepted as true. For example, if they believed in the flat earth, then were presented with the undeniable evidence of the spherical planet, they became stronger in their flat earth belief.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.
This explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs, both of which are drilled into children from the time they are born.
One may easily say, “every belief should be open to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence,” but attempting to live up to that standard is difficult and takes a concentrated effort.
Which brings me to Ayn Rand.
A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa [Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet. Chapter 1, “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 28. Sorry, my copy is so old there is no ISBN. Rand also said this in the August 1970 issue of “the Objectivist” at page 3. Yes, I have the original copy I subscribed to and got in 1970.] and humans have no instincts. [Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. P. 1013. Again, my copy is pre-ISBN. Hell, even my Spanish copy is pre-ISBN.]
The Theory of Evolution holds humans are not born tabula rasa and we do have instincts. Instinctive behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism to act in a particular manner. An instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern in which a sequence of actions are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. For example, a dog shaking water from wet fur.
The role of instincts (genetically determined behaviors) in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system, the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and instincts play a lesser role.
Do humans have instincts? The answer is, in 2016, clearly yes. Humans seem to be mentally “hardwired” regarding many observable activities, such as the False Positive or False Negative responses to signs of danger such as the rustling of shrubs ahead. Is the rustling from the wind or a predator?
Humans tend to elect the false positive, which means we fear the worst, but the rustling is only the wind and we go on to make love and make babies. The species continues. Animals which selected a false negative, the ones who thought it was the wind when in truth the rustling was a predator, were lunch for the predator. They did not make love and have babies. The species ends. Natural selection.
These are dissonant cognitions. As Rand points out in Atlas, if there are two sides, at least one is wrong (both may be wrong, but one must be wrong if the positions are mutually exclusive). How did Rand resolve the problem? She refused to take sides. “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Ayn Rand Letter, Vol II, No. 17, May 21, 1973. We are talking 1973, not 1873, and Rand does not take a stand on one of the most important discoveries in history. Incredible.
In my research I did not find Rand even mentioned Darwin. I am not the first to discover this omission. Neil Parille, in his essay, “Ayn Rand and Evolution” (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...) presents an interesting explanation of why.
As time went on Rand and her lap dog Peikoff seemed driven more deeply into her tabula rasa and lack of instincts beliefs. This comports with the findings of Festinger. I think she was smart enough to know better but was unable to cope with the evidence due to cognitive dissonance.
This leaves Rand as (1) an individual who believes something with her whole heart and soul; (2) has taken irrevocable actions because of it by publishing her thoughts to the world and her followers; and (3) refused to even examine evidence to the contrary.
What would possibly drive Rand to ignore the theory of evolution, which was the most culturally changing theory in history, placing science before religion and illustrating religion’s claims for creationism to ring hollow?
Did she (1) say I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true; (2) reduce the importance of the conflicting belief and say “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider; or (3) try to make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict; or (4) what?
To me, Rand selected door number 2: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” In doing so, she reneged on a fundamental principle of her own philosophy: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of realty.” Atlas, at pages 1016-1017.
Here us the question I ask the Gulch: In failing to deal with evolution, did Rand abdicate her mind and evict herself from the realm of reality? Or, is there some other explanation for her omission?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
This post taught me something Wiio was right. Osmo A. Wiio, a Finnish professor of communication, developed communication “laws” which I have found to be true:
(1) Communication usually fails, except by accident.
(2) If a message can be interpreted in several ways, it will be interpreted in a manner that maximizes damage.
(3) There is always someone who knows better than you what you meant by your message.
I will restate his laws, borrowing from Murphy: Whenever you say something, if there is any possible way for another to misunderstand what you say, you will be misunderstood in the worst possible way, at the worst possible time, and then they will tell you what you “really” meant by your message.
Disagreeing with one’s views is not the same as being against the people that hold those views. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books and beliefs don't and are not due the same respect. Books and beliefs are to be challenged and examined.
Once the forms of civility are violated by the discussion participants by resorting to name-calling, little remains of hope to return to kindness or decency. The ad hominem attacks upon me were impolite, but consistent with the dogmatic attacks I have received previously in the Gulch and illustrate why Objectivism works to exclude others rather than teach. Objectivism is failing to attract people. Rand was almost proud of that. I am not. Objectivist dogs need to wag more, bark less.
I don't usually engage in too much back-and-forth blogging, since this rarely results in more light than heat. Certainly true here.
I would disagree a bit here. Depends upon how you define knowledge. Knowledge is a kind of a wide ranging concept. It deals with everything from percepts to concepts and maybe even to the level of sensations, usually in a fully functioning brain in animals. Instincts deal with everything from inborn complex behavior to built in basic means of knowing. Inborn nursing activity does not require any kind of knowing at all. Same for salmon activity of returning to the original spawning stream. I was watching the DC eagle cameras to see how the eaglets behaved with respect to the nest. When chicks they just lay around with feeding reflex operating their bills when the parents returned with fish. After several weeks with the parents having repairing the nest by replacing sticks, the eaglets started moving out of place sticks out of the way after finding that it would not work if being stood upon. Such a way of behaving may be complex but is more like patterning after others like young humans do without any innate knowledge.
The discussions on instincts usually deal with inborn knowledge and not with built in complex biological action sequencing or complex reflex strings of action or even in non humans of nest building, etc. There is no other knowledge than perceptual and conceptual knowledge. Perhaps memories can be considered as driving some kind of instinctual activity.
In fact, it is the concept of consciousness that makes the concept of instinct possible, since the concept of knowledge presupposes the concept of consciousness and the concept of instinct presupposes the concept of knowledge since without concept of knowledge there would no way to make a sub-concept of a different type of knowledge as of instinct. Instinct cannot be a type of complex reflex actions since reflexes are non-conscious actions. So by definition, instincts are closely related to some kind of knowledge and cannot be built in at birth other than as some kind of tabula rasa potential devices for complex actions but that seems to be just what a human animal and other animals seem to be.
Moving on, I certainly think you are wrong when you say “Reality is how humans perceive it” because this is the non-objective primacy of consciousness concept. Rand, and I, hold the primacy of existence is true.
I often say in engineering that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is an accident, not a good design practice. The same is true here. One could argue that being lucky is better than being good, but that colloquialism doesn't hold in the the long run. Knowledge comes from facts, logic and reason. A hypothesis can come from a belief, and a belief can turn out to be specifically true, but a belief can never be knowledge until reasoned out.
You also trying to place yourself as the victim of an ad hominem attack, after I explained only how your ARGUMENTS were irrational. That is NOT an ad hominem. I'm sure your use of standard formulaic troll comments is pure coincidence as well. (BTW to call you a troll WOULD have been ad hominem)
Why you, and so many here in the Gulch, engage in ad hominem attacks (not only against me but against others) escapes my understanding. But, so be it. I question what your goal might be in making the statements as you phrase them. If your goal is to change the mind of a reader, then I think the style is misplaced.
If your goal is to convince a person of another orientation, then attacking the person you want to change is not likely to lead your objective. I suspect you know this, and I can dismiss it as the motive of your comment.
If you feel better by putting other people down with bromides and pontificating, then I suggest you place a lot of mirrors in your house and run from one to the other reciting your slogans. You may wish to video them. But do not pretend to yourself the exact nature of your motives and goal.
If, however, you genuinely want to communicate, and not play a role of being the heroic, right-thinking, all-knowing seer without whose words others will wither, suffer and die, then you must end role playing and posturing. Treat people as equal humans and enter into discourse.
As Eric Hoffer said: “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” You sound dogmatic to me.
Let me take the liberty to restate your paragraph. As for instincts, I see Rand as believing that humans do not have instincts to just mean that humans are born without conceptual knowledge, and in that limited sense tabula rasa. They have inborn instinctual actions, such as for nursing, but no formed concepts. These inborn complex activities which would not be considered knowledge since knowledge implies consciousness.
Why you, and so many here in the Gulch, engage in ad hominem attacks (not only against me but against others) escapes my understanding. But, so be it. I question what your goal might be in making the statements as you phrase them. If your goal is to change the mind of a reader, then I think the style is misplaced.
If your goal is to convince a person of another orientation, then attacking the person you want to change is not likely to lead your objective. I suspect you know this, and I can dismiss it as the motive of your comment.
If you feel better by putting other people down with bromides and pontificating, then I suggest you place a lot of mirrors in your house and run from one to the other reciting your slogans. You may wish to video them. But do not pretend to yourself the exact nature of your motives and goal.
If, however, you genuinely want to communicate, and not play a role of being the heroic, right-thinking, all-knowing seer without whose words others will wither, suffer and die, then you must end role playing and posturing. Treat people as equal humans and enter into discourse.
“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, “Concepts of Consciousness,” page 35. This definition comports with generally accepted definitions, one of which Rand quotes: "All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man's knowledge has a foundation in fact; if they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man's knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination." (Edward C. Moore, American Pragmatism: Peirce, James, & Dewey, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 27.)
Guess you gota die before your taken seriously.
Load more comments...