Saturday, November 27, 2010

The McCaskey Mess

Anyone who follows the Objectivist world probably has heard about John McCaskey’s resignation from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute over his Amazon review of David Harriman’s The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. I don’t have the time nor interest to rehash the gory details of this incident. Others have done an admirable job detailing and analyzing the tsunami of consequences that has washed across the shores of the Objectivist work. For anyone reading this who is not aware of these events here is a short and admittedly incomplete list. A list of links to other commentaries is provided at the end.

  • John McCaskey, who holds a doctorate from Stanford University in the history of science, who teaches at Stanford and who was a board member of ARI, wrote an Amazon review of David Harriman’s The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. (According to Wikipedia, McCaskey also “organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.”) His review starts with this statement: “Readers of the book should be aware that the historical accounts presented here often differ from those given by academic researchers working on the history of science and often by the scientists themselves.” After explaining the reasons for this statement McCaskey concludes with: “The theory of induction proposed here is potentially seminal; a theory that grounds inductive inference in concept-formation is welcome indeed. But the theory is still inchoate. If it is to be widely adopted, it will need to be better reconciled with the historical record as the theory gets fleshed out and refined.
  • McCaskey resigned from ARI after Peikoff wrote a letter in which he said: “When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me – I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism – is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go, and someone will go. It is your prerogative to decide whom.”
  • Leonard Peikoff issued a subsequent letter explaining his position. He notes: Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.” He also states: “An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with ‘freedom’ for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology.”
  • Yaron Brook, speaking on behalf of ARI, posted a statement containing this: “The substantive issue that Dr. Peikoff raised—whether a person who does not support a central ARI project should sit on the Board—was itself a very serious one. In addition, the Board had the practical, moral, and fiduciary responsibility to avoid needlessly damaging our important relationship with Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff founded ARI, served as its first Board chairman, and has continued to provide ARI with moral, financial, and practical support over the 25 years of ARI’s existence. As Ayn Rand’s heir, he has been very generous in giving Ayn Rand’s materials to the ARI Archives, with much more planned for the future. In these and many other ways, Dr. Peikoff’s ongoing support is important to ARI; we are certainly interested in hearing his thoughts and analyses, and we give them due weight in our deliberations.” This could hint at stronger disagreements between McCaskey and ARI than was revealed publicly.
  • Craig Biddle, founder and editor of The Objective Standard, published a statement titled “Justice for John P. McCaskey”.
  • In turn ARI canceled a lecture series by Craig Biddle.
  • Biddle removed Yaron Brook’s name from the masthead of The Objective Standard.

In light of the above here are some observations.

  • I don’t see anywhere in Peikoff’s or Brook’s responses a direct challenge of McCaskey’s points about Harriman’s book.
  • I was not familiar with McCaskey before this controversy. After this story broke I visited his web site where a series of his publications, lectures and presentations are posted, most of which deal with the history of science or induction. As most people know Stanford has a strong reputation. It’s not like McCaskey is teaching at some no-name community college. If anyone among the ARI crew could test Harriman’s thesis it would appear that McCaskey has the qualifications.
  • When Peikoff states that McCaskey is an “obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual.” I don’t see an explanation how these traits, if true, are moral failings. Maybe Peikoff would argue that a person with these traits is lying to himself and others. I’ve met people who rubbed me the wrong way; I didn’t consider them to be immoral. Mistaken maybe. Or delusional. But not necessarily immoral.
  • As stated before McCaskey raised issues with the historical background in The Logical Leap, not with its thesis. Maybe he challenged the book’s thesis privately with his ARI colleagues. If McCaskey did harbor serious reservations at least he didn’t publicly broadcast it. Nonetheless, given his credentials and expertise of anyone in ARI I’d say McCaskey is qualified to question the book.
  • It’s also obvious to me that ARI is handcuffed because of Peikoff’s hold on Rand’s “materials.”

I’ve written before that ARI has done an admirable job representing Objectivism in various media outlets in a principled manner but without the extreme polemics that can alienate the general public. This affair will somewhat undermine those efforts and will provide additional ammunition to Rand’s detractors who feel Objectivism is a sham philosophy. I’m sure ARI will lose some supporters because of McCaskey’s treatment but I think it’s premature to predict ARI’s demise. They still will have the steady influx of new readers who will find references to ARI in Rand’s novels in addition to ARI’s distribution of 400,000 of Rand’s novels as part of their essay contest. (An advantage that The Atlas Society does not enjoy, not that this is the only reason for their struggles.)

I think this incident opened the eyes of some people who aligned themselves with ARI. They were caught by surprise by the reaction to McCaskey’s review and how he and others who took his side were treated. For others such an episode was not so surprising. It was just a matter of time.


Xtra Laj said...

Actually, I believe McCaskey wrote his review after resigning from the ARI board and not before. Before that, criticisms of the book were made in private but if you read Harriman's letter to Diana Hsieh, you can guess what the tenor of Harriman's reception of the criticism was, even in private.

Anonymous said...

The link to Peikoff's statement:
is dead, he's removed that page.

But it's archived at

Anonymous said...

Summary: Peikoff, a prideful, arrogant prick does NOT like to be challenged or disagreed with: not publicly, not privately, not in principle, not specifically. His response to anyone who does so is punishment. He is a bully. He sees ARI as his fiefdom, and will kill (only figuratively, I presume) anyone involved with ARI who dares interfere. Poor McCaskey was busy being an honest academic, concerned with scholarship and with what was best for ARI, the people invested in the mission, and the individuals involved.

Henry Scuoteguazza said...

I posted the most recent comment despite it's prickly language. ;-) I felt the overall point the commenter makes was worth sharing.

David said...

Scotty, the review at Amazon of Harriman's book came _after_ he was booted out of ARI at Peikoff's behest for _private_ criticisms of the book.