2-year-old Left In Car Overnight | Judge Pirro

Judge Faith - Walking Dead Man (Season 1: Episode #125)

Walking Dead Man - A man loans his friend money, but claims it was used for shady purposes and he wants his money back. His former friend claims he has resorted to threats and won't pay

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

The Objectivist Epistemology; a dedication to rationality and the world as it is.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the validity and requirements of human knowledge. Epistemology includes those facts about how one thinks and how one should think which one must understand to minimize errors when learning about other subjects.
In essence, Objectivist epistemology holds that all of man's knowledge comes from the senses, and is developed in the following order- Percepts, which come from the automatic integration of certain sensations that lead to awareness of a specific existent, and Concepts, the mind's organization of percepts [as well as other concepts] into groups based on their essential characteristics that differentiate them from other entities. Furthermore, Objectivist epistemology rejects all forms of faith or mysticism as means of knowledge.
The foundational writing for Objectivist epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE); Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) further develops a number of the basic ideas of ITOE.

From sensations to concepts

Sensations are the basic information provided to the mind by the sensory organs, such as the light from the computer screen you're reading now. The awareness of these sensations is considered axiomatically"valid" on the grounds that it is self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge, because such an assertion implicitly assumes the validity of the senses. For example, something which is an "illusion" is something which is perceived falsely; reality contradicts your awareness of it. Since that is part of what "illusion" means, to suggest that reality is an illusion means that reality contradicts itself.
Sensation, or awareness of raw sensory data, counts as knowledge in a limited way. However, sensations as such are not retained by the mind and so cannot provide guidance beyond the present moment. (To refer to the previous example, if the computer screen you're reading turns off, the sensation ends.) Perception extends the awareness of the objects of sensation over time, a "percept" being a group of sensations that is automatically retained and integrated by the mind. Some animals other than human beings operate at the level of sensory perception and thus possess a measure of knowledge.
Human beings are unique in possessing another, higher level of cognition: the conceptual level. According to Objectivism, the human mind apprehends reality through a process of reasoning based upon sensory observation, in which perceptual information is built up into concepts and propositions.
However, humans are not guaranteed to achieve this level of consciousness, instead possessing a "volitional consciousness", reaching the "conceptual level" only by an act of volition to which no one can be led or forced from the outside. All humans by definition have the potential to achieve the conceptual level, but some may fail to actualize this potential — and some may lapse from the conceptual level by practising evasion, by which is meant evasion of reason, a deliberate abandonment of the rational consciousness.
Any mind, human or nonhuman, can explicitly hold only so many perceptual units at a time. But the human mind is able to extend its knowledge over a wide range of space, time, and scope by organizing its perceptual information into classifications.
For more information on the formation of concepts, see Concept formation

Topics In Epistemology

The analytic-synthetic dichotomy

Objectivism explicitly rejects the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. This dichotomy — which stems from the views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant — is the view that there is a fundamental distinction between statements that are true in virtue of meaning, alone, and statements whose truth depends upon something more (usually, upon the way the world is). Rand rejected the view that there is any such fundamental distinction, because she accepted that the meaning of a word is its referent, including that referent's every attribute. Consequently, any true proposition is in a way true in virtue of meaning, while its truth simultaneously depends upon the way the world is. In specific, Rand holds that the meaning of a non-singular term is the concept associated with that term, while this concept somehow includes or subsumes all the particulars of a given class, including all the attributes had by these particulars. Which particulars a concept subsumes, according to Rand, depends upon what the concept-coiner was discriminating from what when he or she formed the concept (this appears to be how Rand accommodates Gottlob Frege's insight that there are different "modes of presentation" of the same content). This view is a version of content externalism, similar in certain ways to the views of Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is intimately related to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as some philosophers believe that analytic truths are known a priori (i.e., they are justified independent of any experience), while synthetic truths are known a posteriori (i.e., they are justified in virtue of experience). Rand rejects the view that there is any a priori knowledge. All knowledge, she holds, including mathematical knowledge, is about the world (though possibly at some very high level of abstraction or quantization). Justification always terminates in the evidence of the senses.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is also related to the alleged distinction between necessary and contingent truths, i.e., the claims of a distinction between truths that could not have been otherwise and truths that could have been otherwise. Many contemporary philosophers believe that mathematical truths such as "2 + 2 = 4" are necessary (could not have been otherwise) while statements such as "There are nine planets in our solar system" are contingent (could have been otherwise). These notions of contingency and necessity have led many contemporary philosophers to elaborate metaphysical systems-building. In constrast, Objectivism holds that there is no distinction between necessary vs. contingent facts in the natural world (that is, all natural facts are necessary) and that the concept of "contingent" applies exclusively to the results of human choice (that is, there is a fundamental distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). All facts hold in virtue of the natures or identities of the entities involved. Man-made facts hold in virtue of actions that were initiated by volitional beings ("I went to the grocery today" is a man-made fact, because I could have done otherwise). Metaphysical facts, by contrast, hold without reference to any action of a volitional consciousness.
Objectivism holds that, in a sense, all facts are "necessary": all knowledge is knowledge of identity, i.e., a statement that an entity (or aspect, potentiality, condition etc. of an entity) is what in fact it is. Many contemporary philosophers claim that, while the proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because it is not constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen. Objectivism recognizes no legitimate meaning of "necessity" other than this one.
Additionally, Objectivism also accepts so-called "nomological" possibility and necessity. Statements of nomological possibility say that certain states-of-affairs are in accordance with natural reality in the sense that they reflect the potential of an entity to act in a certain way. For example, consider the propositions, "This glass could break" and "It could rain this weekend." These report truths, because they say that, it is in the nature of glasses that they can break (given the right circumstances) and similarly it is in the nature of the weather that it has the potential to produce rain. Objectivism analyzes counterfactuals, e.g., "If I had dropped this glass, it would break," in similar terms. Objectivism does not insist, as many contemporary philosophers do, that there must be some fact in another possible world for this proposition to correspond with, in order for it to be true. Objectivism also rejects the now-popular view that these nomological facts should be analyzed using a "possible worlds" framework that builds on a distinction between the necessary and the contingent.

The problem of universals

Objectivism offers the foregoing account as the solution of the problem of universals. This problem has throughout the history of philosophy been regarded as a problem of metaphysics, but Objectivism asserts that its proper resolution lies in epistemology. Traditional solutions to the problem divide generally into realism and nominalism. Objectivism regards the first as "intrinsicism" (the view that universals are "intrinsic" to reality) and the second as "subjectivism" (the view that universals are arbitrary creations of the human mind). The proper resolution, Objectivism says, is that universals are concepts, created to meet the unique cognitive needs of the human mind, but objective so long as they are validly formed.

Objectivism, classical rationalism, classical empiricism

There are many notable differences between Objectivist epistemology and classical rationalism. While a classical rationalist would defend a "thick" conception of reason that includes a priori knowledge and the grasp of relations of necessity, Objectivism defends a "thin" conception that denies the possibility of a priori knowledge, tends to treat the grasp of necessity as something akin to mystical insight, and relegates reason to the role of classifying and organizing the information provided by sensory perception.


Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=9367"

James "The Amazing" Randi Lecture at Princeton: The Search for the Chimera

James "The Amazing" Randi in his visit to Princeton University in 2001, gives us his classic style of scientific scepticism mixed with his ability to expose the most irritating flaws in our society, and the fakers who push their tricks and gimmicks like a cheap drug. "The Amazing" Randi is the perfect mix of Science and Magic, a true conjurer of visual machinations that can fool our senses while, at the same time, explaining to us how our senses are fooled. In my opinion this is the best example of a "human mind debugger", he gets right into the machinations of analog tricks and sees how our brains mistakenly manifests them as a possible reality. Randi also teaches us that illusion and trickery may be comforting to the human mind, but truth is far much more wonderful as it shows us the machinations from the chaos, the sense as well as the awe in both the tricks and the real world. For several decades, Randi has gone on to expose hundreds of psychics and teach millions across the globe about how they could be fooled into believing in a system which could potentially make them vulnerable to trickery and perhaps psychical harm. Randi is not afraid to go against popular opinion, as shown in his battle against so-called psychic Uri Geller in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Randi has also gone against the bizarre practise of faith "healing" and contacting the deceased, and has exposed the cruel, callous and cynical nature of the people who claim to be performing "God's will", such as Peter Popoff. Randi has also warned us time and time again about the fraudulent practise that is homoeopathic medicine and how it is essentially water solution, dished out as hocus-pocus medicine. James Randi is the founder of The James Randi Educational Foundation, an organisation that attempts to bring reason to world by luring potential psychics into a trap, baited by a million dollar prize to prove their psychic "powers". "powers" here is a kind of vague term,as Randi knows, so the tests are usually on the so-called psychic's terms. No self-acclaimed psychic has ever won the prize. Whether or not some form of psychic power exists is still an open question, however many psychics often do not properly gauge their so-called skills and instead brag about them, hence scepticism about such claims should not be so strange to their ears. Unfortunately the vast amount of psychic powers they have seem to remove all self-esteem as many psychics are often uneasy about Randi's reasonable request and attractive reward. Regardless, psychic frauds come and go in droves but there will only ever be one James "The Amazing" Randi. Enjoy this lecture and help share his noble message of skepticism and critical thinking of irrational claims.

Yaron Lecture | The Moral Case for Capitalism at Sam M. Walton College of Business

In this lecture, Yaron Brook speaks to students at the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas on the morality of capitalism. Recorded on January 17, 2017 in Fayetteville, AR. Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Yaron Brook Show | Objectivist Morality; Morality without God

This video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from: Yaron Brook Show: Interview with Philosopher Ben Bayer-Consipiracy Theories+++ Streamed on Sept. 18 2018 You can see the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuiJQ... #MoralityWithoutGod #RationalMorality #Morality Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Ayn Rand A Sense of Life (archive.org)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life is a documentary film written, produced, and directed by Michael Paxton. Its focus is on novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, the author of the bestselling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, who promoted her philosophy of Objectivism through her books, articles, speeches, and media appearances.

Judge Faith - Pay Your Own Student Loan; Urine or You're Out (Season 1: Episode #81)

Yaron Interviewed: Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics (in English, in Spain)

In this interview, Yaron Brook sits down with Pablo de Angulo Ruiz-Morón host of the student club El Club de los Viernes to discuss Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics. Yaron also shares his views about how Israel's policies are perceived by the media and the public in Europe. Recorded on June 12, 2018 with the student club El Club de Los Viernes in Granada, Spain. Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Another busy week for me

Once again my week has been busy with meetings and therapy sessions. Things are personally going quite well these days. I do get my own psychiatrist on April 1st and my new medications seem to be working well still. I have not come out as an Objectivist yet to anyone from the men's group. I have left little hints a bread trail if you will. I mentioned individualism vs collectivism a couple times. 

I will continue to drop hints whenever subjects surrounding philosophy come up in the meetings. I might just let the facilitators know before one of these meetings. It is nothing I am ashamed of being known as. I also will spend tomorrow resting up as I have no meetings tomorrow. I am watching American Ninja at this time something I have not seen in a long time. It is just as good as ever 

Signing off for the night,

Chris M. 

Taking Your Happiness Seriously (Dave Rubin Interview with Tara Smith)

This is the sixth episode in a series looking at Objectivism's approach to Happiness. Philosopher Tara Smith joins Dave Rubin to discuss what it means to take one's happiness seriously. Watch more of this series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... To receive notifications as each new episode is released, subscribe to the ARI channel: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ****** Dave Rubin Host of The Rubin report Dave on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RubinReport Tara Smith Author, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist For more from Tara: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hryP6... ****** Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst Explore ARI: http://www.aynrand.org ****** The Ayn Rand Institute is funded through subscription and one-time donations: http://aynrand.org/donate

I am my own highest value and you should be yours.

The Rubin Report | Grounding Morality in Facts

This is the fifth episode in a series looking at Objectivism's approach to Happiness. Philosophers Gregory Salmieri and Harry Binswanger join Dave Rubin to discuss Objectivism's view on the relationship between facts and values, why Ayn Rand's ideas generate the strong reactions they do, and Harry's experience knowing Ayn Rand personally. Watch more of this series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... To receive notifications as each new episode is released, subscribe to the ARI channel: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ****** Dave Rubin Host of The Rubin report Dave on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RubinReport Harry Binswanger Author, How We Know For more from Harry: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Gregory Salmieri Editor, A Companion to Ayn Rand For more from Greg: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... ****** Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst Explore ARI: http://www.aynrand.org ****** The Ayn Rand Institute is funded through subscription and one-time donations: http://aynrand.org/donate

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times." According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'.

According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.

Gina Gorlin | Deeper Connection Through Mutual Selfishness

Deeper Connection Through Mutual Selfishness This talk integrates the moral perspective offered by Rand’s “trader principle” with psychological tools and insights for improving assertive communication. Attendees will learn how skills such as reflective listening, the “broken record” technique, perspective-taking, and ”I”-statements can deepen the intimacy and value derived from close personal relationships, largely by conveying respect for the other person’s volition and value-context while also demanding respect for one’s own. Recorded at Objectivist Conferences 2018 SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/... SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit... EXPLORE ARI http://www.AynRand.org FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER https://twitter.com/AynRandInst LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS https://campus.aynrand.org/ INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES http://objectivistconferences.com/ LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES http://aynrandcon.org/

Myles Power | Did the Titanic Really Sink? The Olympic Switch Theory Debunked

In the early hours of April 15th, the British passenger liner RMS #Titanic, owned by the White Star Line, collided with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City. At the time, some believed the ship to be “practically unsinkable” because of her system of watertight compartments, of which four could be flooded and the ship would still remain afloat. However, the iceberg tore a series of holes along the side of the hull, flooding six compartments, which sealed the ships fate. Less then three hours after the collision, Titanic would lay at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean…or did it? There is a rather fascinating and compelling #ConspiracyTheory that Titanic was switched with her sister ship, Olympic, and was purposefully sank as part of an insurance scam! Support Myles through Patreon http://patreon.com/powerm1985 Did the Titanic Really Sink? The Olympic Switch Theory https://mylespower.co.uk/2018/04/23/d... Intro Music by Michael 'Skitch' Schiciano bio: http://bio.skitchmusic.com soundcloud: http://www.soundcloud.com/skitchstudio Subscribe for SCIENCE! Website: http://www.mylespower.co.uk Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/#!/powerm1985 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/powerm1985

Jim Browning | Microsoft or tech support scam - Locating the scammers