Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[Mycroft]

... and the information provided to her by the person who is trying to sell it, instead of independent scientific research...

I think everyone understands that in real life decisions are more complex then they are in a novel, but the point of the exchange is to demonstrate the difference in thinking between the collectivist Jim and the individualist Dagny. Jim can't conceive of making a decision and taking action before getting a consensus from his friends, most of which are political and not scientific. Dagny can't understand why she should wait on someone else's opinion when she's perfectly capable of making the decision herself.

It's also important to understand the world they live in is not utopian, it's dystopian. It's not meant to reflect the real world, it's meant to reflect a dysfunctional system such as the Soviet system Rand fled from.

 

[Mycroft]

You can't help but be completely dependent on people in many situations. Do you fly the plane you get on? Operate on yourself in the hospital? Drive the taxi that picks you up? Severely disabled people are often totally dependent on others. What a drag on society! Can't we just put them all in a big euth-a-booth?

Like many teenagers, I found objectivism to be a compelling theory. What teenager doesn't think they have all the answers? Then you grow up a bit and realize how morally/intellectually bankrupt it really is. Can anyone imagine Ayn Rand as a mother? ::shudder::

I can't think of anything in any of her novels that I read that suggest one shouldn't "depend" on others to drive your car, fly your airplane, or perform surgery on you if needed. As has already been said, self-sufficiency in this context is in making sure you have what it takes to pay for these services when you need them, it doesn't mean you have to do them yourself.

 

[mhaze]

I think everyone understands that in real life decisions are more complex then they are in a novel, but the point of the exchange is to demonstrate the difference in thinking between the collectivist Jim and the individualist Dagny. Jim can't conceive of making a decision and taking action before getting a consensus from his friends, most of which are political and not scientific. Dagny can't understand why she should wait on someone else's opinion when she's perfectly capable of making the decision herself.

It's also important to understand the world they live in is not utopian, it's dystopian. It's not meant to reflect the real world, it's meant to reflect a dysfunctional system such as the Soviet system Rand fled from.

I think our world fast approaches these attributes, but to clarify for those who have not read the novel, this doesn't mean we are "headed toward communism". We are headed toward a similar dystopia which communism exhibits, formed by a kleptocracy of debased capitalism fenced in by a welfare state.

 

[Skeptic]

So you can point me to some place where she says something that paraphrased, is "screw the scientific evidence"?

Yes:

"The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities," he said, "seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending-"
"Drop it, Jim."

That is, her views of metallurgy matter; that of the collection of actual metallurgy experts do not. That's contempt of science in the name of individualism.

But science doesn't care if you've reached your conclusions due to free, independent thought that consults nobody. It's still far more likely that consent of most experts on the subject is far more correct than that of any outsider (rare exceptions, of course, exist).

 

[Skeptic]

but the point of the exchange is to demonstrate the difference in thinking between the collectivist Jim and the individualist Dagny

Yes -- which is why I said the success of individualism in her world isn't actually circular reasoning, only "nearly" so, since it is openly acknowledged it is a novel and therefore Rand cannot be accused of "inventing" evidence by writing what is openly not evidence but fiction.

Fiction can be used to advance a philosophical argument, of course -- e.g., Plato's allegory of the cave. But here it doesn't work since it isn't an allegory; much of the philosophical force of the fiction depends on unlikely, indeed impossible, events. Just imagine how much less convincing of the philosophy of objectivism this book would have been if the outcome of Dangy using her judgment in the face of all expert views turned out more realistically, e.g., leading to total disaster.

Sure, novels where the good guys win against the odds at the end do teach us (by repetition if nothing else) that it's better to be good than bad, and good and bad are different. But it cannot be given as an argument to prefer good to bad. This is why we have philosophy and ethics seperately from fiction.

Rand, in her fiction, tries to mix the two, and the result hurts the novel a lot (her sledgehammer approach towards preaching and making DAMN SURE nobody could POSSIBLY miss the point that the egoists are the "good guys" and the looters the "bad guys" makes for difficult, at times embarrasing, reading), while the fact that the philosophical argument relies on grossly unlikely fictional events makes it useless as a philosophical argument.

 

[Skeptic]

Like many teenagers, I found objectivism to be a compelling theory. What teenager doesn't think they have all the answers? Then you grow up a bit and realize how morally/intellectually bankrupt it really is. Can anyone imagine Ayn Rand as a mother? ::shudder::

Rand was a teenager who never grew up. Her ideas were THE TRUTH; everybody else was STUPID; adulation from the world for her genius was HER DUE; critics JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.

Sounds familiar? Well, yes -- that's you and me and the rest of the world... at age 16.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes:

"The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities," he said, "seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending-"
"Drop it, Jim."

That is, her views of metallurgy matter; that of the collection of actual metallurgy experts do not. That's contempt of science in the name of individualism.

But science doesn't care if you've reached your conclusions due to free, independent thought that consults nobody. It's still far more likely that consent of most experts on the subject is far more correct than that of any outsider (rare exceptions, of course, exist).

You have to understand it in context. Yes, in the real world ignoring scientific consensus is generally a bad idea, but the society Dagny lives in is dysfunctional. Part of the dysfunction is that the "recognized experts" will not endorse anything new, and neither will they conclusively damn anything. The reports they write will not go against the established orthodoxy. Instead they will be vaguely discouraging, reading something like, "While the samples seem to posses all the necessary attributes we remain skeptical of their functionality as there is no track record of real world application..."

It's not because the scientific evidence isn't there, it's because the individual scientists will never say anything against the established orthodoxy, or against orthodoxy that might be established in the future. Basically science itself is subverted by politics.

 

[epepke]

Could someone please explain to me why Ayn Rand had such a thing about soybeans?

 

[lomiller]

You have to understand it in context. Yes, in the real world ignoring scientific consensus is generally a bad idea, but the society Dagny lives in is dysfunctional. Part of the dysfunction is that the "recognized experts" will not endorse anything new, and neither will they conclusively damn anything. The reports they write will not go against the established orthodoxy. Instead they will be vaguely discouraging, reading something like, "While the samples seem to posses all the necessary attributes we remain skeptical of their functionality as there is no track record of real world application..."

It's not because the scientific evidence isn't there, it's because the individual scientists will never say anything against the established orthodoxy, or against orthodoxy that might be established in the future. Basically science itself is subverted by politics.

But that’s just writer fiat. Maybe if we lived in such a world the philosophy she is pushing may make sense, but you can’t just make up a fictional situation where her ideas “could work” and use that to justify the ideas. If she were just writing fiction this would not be a problem, but she’s trying to create an argument if favour of the philosophy she has developed and the fact that she can only have it work by creating a fictional situation completely separate from the real world should tell us something.

 

[Skeptic]

Let me give an analogy. Suppose I write a novel where everybody who has brown eyes is a murderous zombie, while everybody who has blue eyes (the minority) is an upright free person. In the novel all blue-eyed people kill evil, murderous brown-eyed people to stay alive.

This is fiction, so, yes, such actions are justified within the context of the novel, and, if they are meant as proof that, say, courage in fighting zombie hordes is a good idea. But it would be absurd to think that this shows us much about what blue-eyed people should do to brown-eyed people in the "real world".

Similarly with Rand. Sure, she creates a novel where within the context of the novel it is better (perhaps) to be an objectivist... but only at the price that the novel's context is so significantly removed from all real-world situations it doesn't mean anything in the real world.

 

[DavidJames]

The message I'm getting is Rand set up a huge strawman world which supporters today have taken as a gospel of reality (use of gospel intentional)

 

[mhaze]

Yes:

"The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities," he said, "seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending-"
"Drop it, Jim."

That is, her views of metallurgy matter; that of the collection of actual metallurgy experts do not. That's contempt of science in the name of individualism.

But science doesn't care if you've reached your conclusions due to free, independent thought that consults nobody. It's still far more likely that consent of most experts on the subject is far more correct than that of any outsider (rare exceptions, of course, exist).

Exactly, completely wrong. You are thinking about some other world than that described in the book.

You have to understand it in context. Yes, in the real world ignoring scientific consensus is generally a bad idea, but the society Dagny lives in is dysfunctional. Part of the dysfunction is that the "recognized experts" will not endorse anything new, and neither will they conclusively damn anything. The reports they write will not go against the established orthodoxy. Instead they will be vaguely discouraging, reading something like, "While the samples seem to posses all the necessary attributes we remain skeptical of their functionality as there is no track record of real world application..."

It's not because the scientific evidence isn't there, it's because the individual scientists will never say anything against the established orthodoxy, or against orthodoxy that might be established in the future. Basically science itself is subverted by politics.

You are being polite. Why not just say it like it was in the book?

Reardan metal was bad until it's been stolen from it's inventor by the looters, and then, suddenly, it's a good thing. Because the money spent by consumers to buy the metal then GOES to the looters.

The only valid assessment mentioned in the book, from an engineering and scientific point of view that was made of Reardan Metal was was done by Dagny.

It may be inferred that other assessments were made in secret and the results mirrored this one, by people in the State Sciences Institute. That would form the reason that the looters wanted the metal, formed a scheme to steal it, and did so essentially by force.

Thus, the opinion of Skeptic, Earthborn and others that Dagny took huge risks by electing to use the metal against better judgement of experts is exactly, completely wrong.

It may be also argued, though, that the looters were not risk takers. Thus only after a conservative risk averse cautionary pronouncement by the "experts" (Here, that means the government agency the "State Sciences Institute") is neutered by an individual TAKING THE RISKS AND PROVING THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT....only then is the product's merit established by practice, such that the looters have the certainty to know it is good to go ahead with the brazen theft of private property and private intellectual property.

After all, why would the looters want to steal anything other than the very best?

However, this illustrates the parasitic co dependance of the collectivists on the capitalists. They hate them, but they need them. They can't innovate, and they can't produce profit. The only question is how much they can steal from those who innovate, and what minimum of profit they can get away with leaving the capitalists, and how strictly they can control them, both subtly and overtly.

Ayn Rand's question: "What happens when the looters push it too far?"

 

[Earthborn]

Ayn Rand would tell you that, as a capable adult, you shouldn't depend on others more than you depend on yourself (meaning that you apply your mind to the world around you and the ideas that are offered to you, and you take responsibility for the role you play in the world and the happiness you get out of it) nor should you let other people who are capable adults depend on you more than they do themselves.

You claim as much as you want that "it is not being hermit living in the woods", but this sort of thing makes modern society completely impossible. People cannot live in the modern world without depending on others, even when it just comes to ideas.

Every mode of transport has traffic controllers we can't see, who can see things we can't and who have expertise we don't share, who judge things we cannot judge and whose orders we either follow without question or we will cause problems we don't foresee. That electronic light above the motorway telling you to slow down even though you personally can't see why; it is there for a reason.

Every building that uses modern architure demands from us that we suspend our personal judgement of whether it might be safe and forces us to simply accept without question that the architect knew what s/he was doing, and only very rarely does that unquestioning trust lead to disasterous consequences.

A modern society is simply too complex to understand, and the expertise people have too narrow and fragmented for anyone to be capable enough to depend on their own judgements more than on those of many others. People are not infinitely capable, and therefore the "capable adult" in your argument does not exist.

Not if they do it voluntarily.

A person can be altruistic voluntarily.

Communism did not and does not work. That means it does not achieve the goal it is supposed to.

The same is true for any other single political philosophy that has a description of how things ought to be. We live in a complex and dynamic reality in which nothing ever happens exactly according to plan.

The actual reasons why are a distraction from the current important points.

No, I think the actual reasons why communism failed to live up to its intentions are very important, because if they are the same reasons other political movements might fail it can serve as a lesson on how to avoid such a fate.

Communism once was claimed to be based on "reason" and promised a society of free voluntary exchange in which the needs of all were met and in which the State was minimal, perhaps even abolished. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Which would be nigh impossible in a nation of Objectivists.

It would be equally nigh impossible in a nation of Communists. But it would easily be possible in a more realistic nation in which some people don't actually follow the philosophy, but have learnt to use its rhetoric.

If a political philosophy is defended with "if everybody followed our philosophy it would totally work!" it has already failed.

A perfectly good reason never to trust any single person's judgements OVER YOUR OWN.

No, a perfectly good reason to never trust any single person's judgements including your own. Just because judgements may be my own doesn't make them better than anyone else's; it is possible to fool oneself.

Irrelevant. No statement was made about why criminals commit crimes. The statement was about why non-criminals don't commit crimes.

Then it is a meaningless statement. If you want to explain why some people don't commit crimes, you'll have to include an explanation why other people do commit crimes. If your explanation for not commiting crimes is "being intelligent, thinking things through and crime not being in your personal self-interest" it is reasonable to assume you imply the opposite is true of those who do commit crime; if they are also intelligent, also think things through and crime is also not in their own personal self-interest, then these things fail to be an explanation for why some do not commit crime.

Untrue.

Figures that the thing I agree with Rand on happens to be the thing that is untrue. Maybe I am wrong too thinking that taxation should ideally be voluntary...

A statement based on multiple false premises.

Can you name some of the premises you think the statement is based on, and can you explain why you think they are wrong?

 

[Earthborn]

You need to focus on the interaction between these two individuals, rather than the alleged broader context. Then you will see that one argues from a position of fear and uncertainty, and tries to elicit emotions in the other, while the other uses reason and logic.

Remaining unemotional is not the same thing as using reason and logic. In the interaction you say we should focus on, Dagny does not show she is using reason and logic. She only shows unquestioning belief in Rearden sales pitch. If instead of "I studied engineering" she had said "I secretly had a sample analysed on its tensile strength in the labs of our own research department, independent from Rearden or the government metallurgical authority..." it would have appeared more plausible that she knew what she was talking about.

False, if the "scientific experts" are just shills for government officials and crony capitalists, who simply tell them what to do and say.

Now you are focusing on the alleged broader context rather then the interaction between these two individuals.

 

[Nursedan]

In terms of the passage being quoted in this thread (Dagny and Jim Taggart's argument about the John Galt line/bridge) I think the point that has been missed is that Dagny would have taken responsibility if the metal failed. She had confidence that it wouldn't fail based on her knowledge of Reardon's capabilities and what she understood about the metal.

She didn't use scientific studies per se because she had such confidence in Reardon and his invention. Again, if it had failed, she would have taken responsiblity - she says so in the book, if I'm not mistaken. This to me is most important. She would not have blamed anyone else if the rail failed - so she felt, rightly so, that she should benefit financially if everything went OK.

I love that line in the book - "I hope to make a pile of money from this - I will have earned it". Perfect line that sums up the message of the book.

 

[mhaze]

In terms of the passage being quoted in this thread (Dagny and Jim Taggart's argument about the John Galt line/bridge) I think the point that has been missed is that Dagny would have taken responsibility if the metal failed. She had confidence that it wouldn't fail based on her knowledge of Reardon's capabilities and what she understood about the metal.

She didn't use scientific studies per se because she had such confidence in Reardon and his invention. Again, if it had failed, she would have taken responsiblity - she says so in the book, if I'm not mistaken. This to me is most important. She would not have blamed anyone else if the rail failed - so she felt, rightly so, that she should benefit financially if everything went OK.

I love that line in the book - "I hope to make a pile of money from this - I will have earned it". Perfect line that sums up the message of the book.

Good point. Capitalism fundamentally implies the opportunity to take risks, and the reality of failing when such risks are taken. The reward for this is simply money. The Looters stand back and crow about risk, then steal the product from the capitalist which withstood the rigors of the marketplace.

As for the quality of her assessment of the metal, which posters here seem to focus on, make a judgement, then attempt to side with James Taggert, and attempt to extend this to an indictment of Objectivism in total, I can only assume that not having read the book, they do not know that they side with a fool.

Nonetheless, I think the passage is a good one to illustrate an important part of the Objectivist method. There are many times that if one simply works through a difficult problem, reaches a decision point, and acts on it, he or she will be light years ahead of others who could not or would not think it through, or who did so, but could not or would not act on it.

Such situations I have been in there certainly were the nay sayers and the James Taggert look alikes.

I have to admit to simply looking at them and thinking "yep this a JT wannabe"...

 

[mhaze]

In terms of the passage being quoted in this thread (Dagny and Jim Taggart's argument about the John Galt line/bridge) I think the point that has been missed is that Dagny would have taken responsibility if the metal failed. She had confidence that it wouldn't fail based on her knowledge of Reardon's capabilities and what she understood about the metal.

She didn't use scientific studies per se because she had such confidence in Reardon and his invention. Again, if it had failed, she would have taken responsiblity - she says so in the book, if I'm not mistaken. This to me is most important. She would not have blamed anyone else if the rail failed - so she felt, rightly so, that she should benefit financially if everything went OK.

I love that line in the book - "I hope to make a pile of money from this - I will have earned it". Perfect line that sums up the message of the book.

Good point. Capitalism fundamentally implies the opportunity to take risks, and the reality of failing when such risks are taken. The reward for this is simply money. The Looters stand back and crow about risk, then steal the product from the capitalist which withstood the rigors of the marketplace.

As for the quality of her assessment of the metal, which posters here seem to focus on, make a judgement, then attempt to side with James Taggert, and attempt to extend this to an indictment of Objectivism in total, I can only assume that not having read the book, they do not know that they side with a fool.

Nonetheless, I think the passage is a good one to illustrate an important part of the Objectivist method. There are many times that if one simply works through a difficult problem, reaches a decision point, and acts on it, he or she will be light years ahead of others who could not or would not think it through, or who did so, but could not or would not act on it.

Rand was making a very important point in this passage, which cannot be simply shrugged off by saying the novel appeals to people with a high school mentality (Skeptic has suggested this repeatedly, but keys to entrepreneurial success is not a high school level question and neither is it's solution):

"Well, whose opinion did you take?"
"I don't ask for opinions."
"What do you go by?"
"Judgment."
"Well, whose judgment did you take?"
"Mine."
"But whom did you consult about it?"
"Nobody."
​

Such situations I have been in there certainly were the nay sayers and the James Taggert look alikes. I have to admit to simply looking at them and thinking "another JT here we got"...

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Taking responsibility for being wrong wouldn't bring back the dead.

 

[Nursedan]

Taking responsibility for being wrong wouldn't bring back the dead.

You mean if the rail/bridge failed and people died? Yes, responsibility here would have meant Dagny would be accountable for those deaths.

No, it wouldn't bring back the dead, but neither does any other punishment, and what if she had done rigorous studies to show the metal would hold and it didn't? Her confidence wouldn't play a role there. Your post makes it sound as if scientific study creates bridges and/or rails that never fail.

Reardon metal's strength has been proven to Dagny at this point in the book. She is no fool; she wouldn't order the track to be built nor would she ride the first train if she had any doubt about it's capablities.

The first train ride on the Galt line is one of the most brilliantly written passags in any book I've ever read. One feels like a hero just reading it; cheering on Dagny as she proves her point riding faster and faster, with townspeople cheering her on as she goes toward the bridge.

 

[mhaze]

Remaining unemotional is not the same thing as using reason and logic. In the interaction you say we should focus on, Dagny does not show she is using reason and logic. She only shows unquestioning belief in Rearden sales pitch. ...

Sales pitch? Rearden didn't do sales pitches.

All of the "sales pitch" type talk and attitude in the plot is by the Looters.

The capitalists just simply state their deal and stick by their word. That's what Rearden did.

Dagny and Rearden are cast as characters of very high capability, intelligence and experience.

Could someone please explain to me why Ayn Rand had such a thing about soybeans?

....thirty million dollars of subsidy money from Washington had been plowed into Project Soybean-an enormous acreage in Louisiana, where a harvest of soybeans was ripening, as advocated and organized by Emma Chalmers, for the purpose of reconditioning the dietary habits of the nation. Emma Chalmers, better known as Kip's Ma, was an old sociologist who had hung about Washington for years, as other women of her age and type hang about barrooms. For some reason which nobody could define, the death of her son in the tunnel catastrophe had given her in Washington an aura of martyrdom, heightened by her recent conversion to Buddhism. "The soybean is a much more sturdy, nutritious and economical plant than all the extravagant foods which our wasteful, self-indulgent diet has conditioned us to expect," Kip's Ma had said over the radio; her voice always sounded as if it were falling in drops, not of water, but of mayonnaise.

"Soybeans make an excellent substitute for bread, meat, cereals and coffee-and if all of us were compelled to adopt soybeans as our staple diet, it would solve the national food crisis and make it possible to feed more people. The greatest food for the greatest number-that's my slogan.

​

You mean the soybeans that the government wanted to force farmers to produce, and force people to eat, to "solve a food crisis" that itself was created by idiotic government policy and regulation, based on mumbo jumbo promises by a whackjob health food nut?

Taking responsibility for being wrong wouldn't bring back the dead.

What dead?

Not the dead in the tunnel catastrophe mentioned above. Not the dead from the increasing number of train wrecks that occurred on old wore out rails, since traditional metal wasn't available due to government meddling with production quotas of the steel companies.

What dead?

The brain dead bureaucrats who would stifle progress? Like the authoritarian controllers who tried to torture Galt, then while doing so found their machine broke down, and found that Galt was the only one who could fix it?

What dead?

....The first train ride on the Galt line is one of the most brilliantly written passages in any book I've ever read. One feels like a hero just reading it; cheering on Dagny as she proves her point riding faster and faster, with townspeople cheering her on as she goes toward the bridge.

The book is basically set as an alternative history, I would place it around 1915-1920 with WW1 not having occurred or maybe the US not participating. Didn't they run that train up to bullet train speeds? So a book written in 1957 predicted ....