As you might suppose, I’m not a proponent of rejecting science or clinical trials, per se. Rather, I’m a critic of how people trust them broadly, while remaining ignorant of common systematic faults in how they are used. Science has become a kind of secular religion, and just as dangerous to the promotion of knowledge in society.

John Ioannidis’s work provides one good point of reference for why we all need a horse-pill sized dose of skepticism about studies we come across. Another good one is Judith Curry’s research on false positives.

I’ve seen too clearly how rubbery the statistics and claims can be in clinical trials, all while parading under the banner of science.

Maybe I’m a lover of what clinical trials will be able to tell us in thirty years. But today I mostly see flabby science, and that’s before the media gets hold of it, and long before the average non-scientist tries to make sense of what they heard in the media.

Conducting strong studies in the healthcare field often requires a ton of manpower and money, which means so much of the current hardcore research is dominated by pharmaceutical companies and government grants, each driving their own dump-truck of smelly biases and agendas.

Top domain experts are in the best position to reliably discern what is known, what is unknown, and what is still in that gray area between the two. Yet these same experts commonly promote ideas later shown to be bunk. That should be more than a little disconcerting to anyone who places a lot of confidence in the science available to us today.

My view is that the clinical trial, as a methodology of applying reason rigorously, is still in its teenage years if not its infancy. So what do I do in the interim? Enjoy the game. Scoff at things that don’t seem to pass the smell test, scientifically or philosophically.

And I’m irreverent toward anything that seems like a religious trust in science, and I am more inclined to trust people who show a healthy skepticism about the ways science is conducted and who recognize just how little we truly know about anything within about 90 yards of the leading edge of science.

Did I mention some people treat science like religion? “But there are STUDIES…” Uh-huh.

To me lately clinical trials often seem more like a sport than a science. I’m no longer in a league, so instead I root for my team, mock the opposition, and enjoy the show.

I’m glad you’re doing the research you do, and are as aware as you are of the pitfalls in the process. I look forward to seeing where you go with it! Now, where’s my popcorn….

Honoring “The Chosin Few” in the Korean War from 27 November 1950 on into December 1950. The battle of Chosin Reservoir. It was intensely brutal combat in temperatures sometimes down to minus-35 degrees in the mountains. A frozen Hell.

Honored warriors there were from the US Marines, the US Army, the Republic of Korea (the “ROKs,” South Korea), and the British Royal Marine Commandos. But don’t forget, the ill-equipped (and tyrannically led) communist Red Chinese troops fought bravely against these UN forces, sometimes fighting down to the very last man. UN forces retreated but Chinese forces were shattered; no one won.

War sucks. We as human animals seem to worship it, romanticize it, love it, and continue it. I confess: combat service has defined my own life; I will never be the same. But war is at its root insane, inhumane and immoral. Will we ever get over it? Can we as a species survive while acting this way?

My reply:

I’ve heard that something like 80% of serious libertarians originally came to these ideas via Ayn Rand’s novels — though their intellectual development hardly stopped there, of course — so perhaps it’s not surprising that many people, especially those who aren’t familiar with the genre, associate her ideas with libertarianism.

The Hickman criticism is unfortunately a case of critics dropping any semblance of intellectual context. Her journal entries about Hickman were written during an early period in her development as a philosopher, when she was going through a Nietzschean phase. So she admired the radical strengths of an Übermensch, while acknowledging his faults? How scandalous! Presumably Nietzsche would come in for even more criticism on this front, but somehow he remains perfectly respectable.

Interestingly, as Ronald Merrill observes in The Ideas of Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead is at root a dramatization of the female protagonist Dominique’s (and thus Rand’s own) progression from nihilism (loving Keating) to Nietzscheanism (loving Wynand) to Objectivism (loving Howard Roark) — culminating in the portrayal of an ideal man who “neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself.”

And so the criticism of Rand as a Hickman “admirer” amounts to saying her philosophy is too Neitzschean when, in fact, she explicitly grew to reject Neitzscheanism in favor of her own philosophy which eschews sacrifices in any form. Her two primary novels are quite explicit about this — which the Hickman criticism ignores entirely. Could one be any less fair in one’s criticism of a philosopher?

I do believe Rand had some bat-shit moments, to use your phrase. I also think it’s a mistake to give in too easily in our defense of her. Sometimes simply restoring a little intellectual context, and reading her actual words, is enough to reveal her as far more thoughtful than her critics would suggest. Given her truly massive role in promoting libertarian ideas, we do ourselves a disservice if we are too quick to push her to the back of — or throw her under — the intellectual bus.

I truly believe we undermine our cause if we’re too quick to allow some of the more ridiculous criticisms to take root.

With that in mind, Robert Bidinotto‘s novel Hunter: A Thriller hit the spot. I found the writing crisp, the characters interesting, and the interplay of plot and theme to be tight and compelling. I was far more moved than I expected to be, particularly by the love relationship between Dylan Hunter and Annie Woods. They wrestled with real challenges, and seeing how they resolved them reminded me why I like romantic realism so much: it inspires you to want to live your own life as fully and heroically as possible.

Bidinotto’s mastery of his craft is evident. As a sometimes-writer myself, I got the feeling a few times that he must have really enjoyed the writing process, because in certain passages I got the distinct sense of a sharp mind at work and at play. I think he must’ve loved writing this book.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Don’t work for my happiness, my brothers — show me yours — show me that it is possible — show me your achievement — and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.” I read the novel intermittently over the course of about three days, and on the last morning, as I finished the final chapter, my feeling toward the author was: Thank you for showing us your achievement.

It has given me courage for mine.

As told by Aristoxenus, and after him Cicero (De Offic. 3.45), Diodorus Siculus (10.4), and others, around the 4th century BC, Pythias and his friend Damon, both followers of the philosopher Pythagoras, traveled to Syracuse. Pythias was accused of plotting against the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius I. As punishment for this crime, Pythias was sentenced to death.

Accepting his sentence, Pythias asked to be allowed to return home one last time, to settle his affairs and bid his family farewell. Not wanting to be taken for a fool, Dionysius refused, believing that once released, Pythias would flee and never return.

Pythias called for Damon and asked him to take his spot while he went. Dionysius agreed, on the condition that, should Pythias not return when promised, Damon would be put to death in his place. Damon agreed, and Pythias was released.

Dionysius was convinced that Pythias would never return, and as the day Pythias promised to return came and went, Dionysius prepared to execute Damon. But just as the executioner was about to kill Damon, Pythias returned.

Apologizing to his friend for his delay, Pythias told of how pirates had captured his ship on the passage back to Syracuse and thrown him overboard. Dionysius listened to Pythias as he described how he swam to shore and made his way back to Syracuse as quickly as possible, arriving just in the nick of time to save his friend.

Dionysius was so taken with the friends’ trust and loyalty, that he freed both Damon and Pythias, and kept them on as counsel to his court.

The human being has two wings, the wing of universality and the wing of individuality, with which to fly above the earth and to soar into the heavens. The wing of universality grows in the awareness of selflessness, while the wing of individuality grows through the creation of selfhood. In this seeming paradox lies the secret of human evolution and of human happiness. To be universal is to be inseparably one, in the oneness of which there is no separate self. To be an individual is to be indivisibly one, in the oneness of which there is an indivisible whole self. In being universal, you come to know what Emerson calls the Over-Soul, and in being indivisibly whole, you come to realize your singular individual soul. With both wings spread freely, to soar into the whole sphere of the Universe and to fly in the entire realm of Reality is to live a Life Immortal. And that is the ecstasy of Enlightened Selfishness.

When you look at the reading list from my transformational programs, you will find books by Ayn Rand (1905-1983) and Lao Russell (1904-1988) side by side. These were two of the most powerful women of the 20th century, sharing almost identical spans of time in history. However, their philosophical outlooks are diametrically opposite to one another. Rand is an atheist and argues for the virtues of selfishness, while Russell is a theist and preaches the virtues of selflessness. People ask me how I can reconcile these two seemingly contradictory philosophical positions. A complete treatment of this question requires a formal philosophical treatise, but it will suffice here to state the following:

Ayn Rand is a philosopher of a rare genius who nonetheless never had the experience of spiritual illumination of which Lao Russell was intimately aware through her husband, Walter Russell, one of the greatest spiritual illuminates in history. Rand’s philosophy, which is a rational philosophic integration of the facts of secular human experience, does not contain anywhere in its entire philosophic equations the experiential data obtainable only through spiritual illumination. Her system, Objectivism, is quintessentially rational, but does not include the realm of the transrational. In fact, being an arch-rationalist, Ayn Rand would categorically deny the cognitive validity of such “mystical experience” as spiritual illumination or transrational awareness or kosmic (or cosmic) consciousness.

Rand’s philosophy is an attempt at constructing a rational theory of reality based solely on the absoluteness of reason and the evidence of the senses (a premise which ultimately breaks down in the kosmic awareness of Primary Reality) which can lead to the attainment of moral character and human happiness within the parameters of individuation and individuated identity. Her system, though incomplete, is consistent and coherent, giving us a rational foundation for living in the realm of life in which there is individuation, individuality, and the diremption (separation) between you and me—the realm of reality which constitutes what is called secular experience, within which we all exist as individual or individuated human beings.

See his full article for much more.

I suspect most Objectivists, and especially those who don’t have any background in Eastern teachings, will choke hard on his transrational comments. I mean, once you’ve found the value of reason, who wants to listen to someone talk about the indivisibly whole Over-Soul?

Yet, for those of us who’ve found value in the writings of teachers like Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti — and the sense of personal liberation that comes from adopting a psychological perspective that is somewhat “outside” the self without renouncing the self in any way — there is something eerily powerful about reading Yasuhiko’s words.

It is this: It’s rare to encounter someone who can understand and embrace both worlds — and especially while actively appreciating, even loving, Rand’s perspective so fully.

Do his words make sense to you? Does his jargon get in the way?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

I seldom order books while I’m overseas, wanting to keep my suitcases light, but I’ve just ordered a copy of this book — which is ironic, because Michael sent me a copy when it was published, and I was still in the U.S., but for personal reasons I was doing much less reading at the time.

Some of you may recognize Strong as the CEO of FLOW, whose activities I have covered from time to time on Mudita Journal. Strong has some new projects that interest me a lot, and I look forward to discussing them here as they become more public.

Meantime, Be the Solution looks like an excellent resource for those of us with an interest in Strong’s brand of synergy between personal development and individual freedom.

Writing at Forbes, Ralph Benko offers a very favorable review that helps put the book into appropriate cultural and political context. He includes this quote from Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who authored the book’s foreword:

Michael was the first Libertarian I had met who was also idealistic and who shared my commitments to both economic and political freedom as well as personal growth, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. … Most Libertarians I know are committed to economic and political freedom but not to the other three. Most of my friends who were committed to personal growth and social and environmental responsibility don’t believe in economic freedom….

Benko cites this passage from Michael Strong as the heart of the book’s thesis:

Much of the animus against the free enterprise system is that it encourages shallow, materialistic values. But every human being who aspires to be an empowered creator must realize that there is no anonymous “it.” Everything we see around us is created by choices made by you and me, our friends and families, and billions of other mostly decent human beings around the world. … We can begin today to create a world in which people are primarily focused on love, compassion, community, wisdom, beauty, and any other ideals.

Benko also writes:

Be the Change has the potential of becoming the bible for savvy, hip Libertarians. Perhaps not since Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has there been a book that so clearly reflects the ethos of pure creativity.

Alinsky: “The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level of which many can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.” (Rules for Radicals, p. 61)

Strong: “[G]o create a world, a community, a subculture in which your ideals can be instantiated, realized, in which you can show us what your vision of beauty and nobility looks like. Create a new social reality, so that I can see your dreams come true. I want to see a world in which billions of dreams are coming true constantly.” (Be the Change, p. 332)

That certainly got my attention.

If you order a copy too, I’d be especially interested to hear your thoughts.

Tonight I find myself clarifying several of the key ideas that Ayn Rand developed that were expressed in the movie. Here are the four key ideas I see in ASM:

1. Innovation and the joy of creation
2. The importance of industrial production
3. Egoism and reason vs. altruism, faith, and force
4. The distinction between the productive class and the political class

Each of these points emerges from time to time as the theme of Atlas Shrugged comes forward: That theme is “What happens to society when the ‘men of the mind,’ the men of honest ability in any field, go on strike?” By the way, the movie does a 10-star job of getting across the theme and the related key ideas within its artistic format limits.

And later:

Without a doubt, ASM is a sterling movie of ideas, and the four I mention above—however vaguely grasped by a general public misled by decades of government schools and the advent of “TV Planet”—will play their way into the public consciousness. Perhaps slowly at first. Americans are not accustomed to movies illuminating big ideas in conceptual terms. Moreover, this is a movie that stands up for the good guys—which are all of us who insist on critical thought and on our rights to live as we choose for our own sakes. The average fellow has never heard a movie character state categorically that he intends to seek his own joy and abundance in life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. It’s nice to see these good guys win, even when still relatively few people understand how good these good guys are.

When I walked out of the theater, there was a newfound spring in my step and confidence in my voice and bearing. On the most profound level, it made me feel as if I were “right,” and have been all along. Certainly others who have fond familiarity with the Randian oeuvre felt the same. And I speculate that those who are innocent of the book ideas, who may never have even heard of Ayn Rand, will experience a similar—yet not so intense—boost in authentic self-esteem. The movie, the ideas so well expressed by believable artists and artistry, makes me feel young again. That we’re going to turn our country around and throw out the evildoers. A natural high like no other: also, that the “great masses” will ultimately throw off their chains along with their externally contrived ignorance and rise to the occasion. Can’t wait for ASM 2 and 3.

What do you think of his presentations?

It’s a topic that interests me, as I’ve long been fascinated by the fact that peace sometimes requires something that looks an awful lot like war — and perhaps, occasionally, even war itself.

Her post begins:

“conflict is essential to the development and growth of man and society. it leads either to the construction or destruction of an entire group or state. . . if there is no conflict – internal or external – there can be no growth.”
-sun tzu, the art of war

thinking about this quote brought a conversation from many years ago to mind. at the time, i was an idealistic new college graduate in my 20s and was tutoring high school and middle school students. one particular student challenged me when i talked about peace as an important ideal. he defended war, and he called it a completely natural thing. “war is even something that happens within our bodies,” he told me. that teenager so eloquently left me flustered. Keep reading

See her full post for more.