« August 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

September 05, 2006

NS touches a nerve

My post asking critical questions about the new Founders College proposal has raised the dander of some internet critics. I expected there to be disagreement among cheerleaders for the project, but I didn't quite expect condemnation.

Over at the "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans," Stephen Speicher wrote the following:

"[I]nteresting perspective" would not be my choice of words. That piece is one extended smear by implication and innuendo. And, as it has so properly been characterized to me by another, it is a piece worthy of modern skeptics. Note the skeptic's favorite epistemological trick: arbitrary questions designed to instill doubt in the unfocused reader.

The "interesting perspective" of that piece is worthy of the tabloid journals, not mention on THE FORUM. I only allow the reference now so that those who would be so unfortunate to see it anyway, have the benefit of my relegating that piece to the trash heap in which it belongs.

Perhaps Mr. Speicher thinks he is refusing to sanction my post by not deigning to justify his conclusion that it is "trash," but it is hard to see how anyone could justify that conclusion.

It is claimed that my piece is "smear." This is a curious, question-begging charge. A "smear" is a slanderous defamation of someone's reputation, a malicious falsehood spread to hurt the good name of another. The point of my post is precisely to question whether there is evidence that the Founders principals have earned the kind of reputation needed for their project, as many Objectivists presume they do. It is not a "smear" to ask for the evidence of someone's reputation. And it is not helpful to respond to such inquiries by alleging malicious intent of the inquirer, rather than providing the evidence he seeks.

More importantly, it is claimed that my piece relies on the use of arbitrary questions intended to induce skeptical doubts. This is a maddeningly ironic response. The "arbitrary" is the defiance of the need for evidence. The point of my post was precisely to ask for evidence of how the Founders project could possibly achieve its stated goals, given what we know about its available resources. Now it would be arbitrary to wonder whether Founders is lying about its financial resources or whether it might really be planning on being an Objectivist college after all. There is no special reason to raise these doubts. But there is a special reason to ask for evidence that Founders' goal of "igniting an education revolution" can be achieved: the fact that given what we know, this is a very difficult goal to achieve, particularly for individuals with no established record of success on such matters, and particularly given the kind of obstacles Founders has erected for itself (e.g. the rejection of the tenure system). In fact, given everything we know, it would be arbitrary to give this project the benefit of the doubt--which is what many (at least on the internet) seem to be doing.

"Tabloid journalism" is sensationalistic, non-objective reporting. Ask yourself who in this matter is making the sensationalistic unverified claims.

Posted by admin at 03:02 PM | Comments (4)