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 3.
Knowledge is the acquired content of consciousness after birth, the higher function of cognition that eventually becomes free will and the ability to reason. The brain arrives with an operating system, if you will, with which to process the sense data from the environment into which a baby is born. The operating system is the blank slate, the empty folder which receives the input and arranges the received data to form concepts and mirror the outside reality.
Another way I describe this function is that the received data consists of "memes" that become part of the human software. Integrating received knowledge without contradiction is the essence of Objectivist psycho-epistemology.
None of these represent knowledge, but until logic drives down the the details, they would represent "true" beliefs.
No one knows everything, and everyone must make decisions on less than complete data (sorry physicists the world is about engineering (intended to precipitate entertaining dialog)). Setting aside a unknown for a belief or hypothesis is a requirement of daily life. However, beliefs are never knowledge. They are like remembering where the furniture is as you fumble in the dark.
As Ayn Rand said: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
present, it is the only scientific theory in the field." Can you give me a citation to it? Thank you.
I do not understand your reference to “many contradictions, conflations of arguments and back handed swings.” If find your comment offensive, yet consistent with too many participants here at the Gulch who view any question of anything done by Rand to be treason to some sort of unstated, dogmatic, allegiance to anything she said or did.
Then you go on to say “All of these are evidenced easily in the comments where you have particularly lost points.” The idea was not to "win" points or anything else. The purpose was to examine what is, to me, one failing by Rand.
As to insight, I did gain insight from some of the participants who were interested in discussing the subject as distinct from protecting an idol. Read the entire blog and you may find the insights as well. In this regard, I accomplished my purpose. The cost was too much time spent with too many people in an adversarial context of dogmatists and too few people who had an intellectual curiosity as to the question. So much for “open” Objectivism in the Gulch. I found this experience to be, with few exceptions, as closed as ARI. Which is to say, the emotional reactions uniformly along the line if Rand said “it,” then “it is true; if Rand did not say “it,” then “it” is false and to question the Prophet is to seek death.
81 years of my life consistently disproves that statement. My hunch is that you are relatively poor "listener", i.e. reader of disagreeing ideas and I definitely think that whoever was your teacher in that course did a very bad job of teaching, communications of all things!!
Good bye. I had enough.
nounce upon evolution. She said, as I recall, "I have read a lot of evidence to support it, and, at
present, it is the only scientific theory in the field."
As a philosopher, there was no need for her to deal with it. She was dealing with man as he
already exists; she was denying, for valid reas-
ons, his having come from some supernatural
Being. Her philosophy was "for living on earth",
not investigating obscure evidence as to his or-
igin.
How much better for her to behave on the
matter as she did, then for her to pontificate on
it, and come up with wild theories!--The evolu-
tionary argument has already been presented.
There was no need for her to try to do the histor-
ians' or biologists' job for them.
Whether or not you are a fan of the professional relationship between Rand and Peikoff, it is statements like these that immediately tip off O's to someone who is perhaps not fully stating his own beliefs regarding Objectivism. Discussion is great. but Objectivists can get ""lapdog Peikoff" out there, everyday, any day. You undermined your own discussion before it began.
As to the cult of Rand, I think any dogmatic group is a cult by the very definition of cult. Shermer did a chapter in his book "Why People Believe Weid Things" analyizing what we would call "closed" Objectivism. It is to that I was referring.
Not long ago I took a course in communication. One of the things I learned was 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. The reason is other people attach their meanings to your words. I believe this is the case here.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/tra...
Your style of writing unmistakably conveys a desire to attack what you perceive as a cult of Ayn Rand, whether you truly intend it or not. Your denials, to my ears, sound insincere.
Load more comments...