I don't think this is done. The bad things about Rand are emphasized, yes, but that is because that is what we can learn from.

Most people commenting did not seem like they were very familiar with the philosophy, and I think the presentation of 1. the ideas behind the philosophy and 2. the founder of the philosophy were incredibly misleading. If someone (like me) were relatively new the site were to read this, they would have an incredibly biased view of her philosophy. I don't see how justifying that point by saying people already know her philosophy gives any credence to the way it was portrayed. The bad things about Rand are emphasized with no regard for factual evidence. We can still learn from her errors without resorting to what felt to me like a curt dismissal of an otherwise intelligent and influential character. If we are willing to discard evidence in favor of more elegant rhetoric, I want no part of it.

No, the main character of Atlas Shrugged was a physicist, who invented a motor that harnessed the power of static electricity, and then went on to flip the entire country the bird. Regardless of whether or not you sympathize with him, is Galt's position so utterly important that it justifies the mass starvation and destitution of the entire country? In my opinion, Galt had a good point to make. But that doesn't justify letting the entire world burn around you just to make your point.

The world as it was portrayed in the book would not have survived long if Galt hadn't done anything. I don't think we can compare it with the real world - America was the last pillar of support, and if it collapsed without Galt having convinced people to "save their minds" then there would have been another long "Dark Ages" period. And people don't actually act the way they do in her books. I would compare it to the decisions made in the Foundation series. But that wasn't really my point anyway - in the book, it was clear that Galt was saving the country in the way Rand thought it should be saved, meaning that she believed that a scientist had that power, and thus advocating something akin to "Study Science!" regardless of the morality of Galt's decision.

I disagree. I don't think LW does this. We're (or at least I am) happy to admit that Rand was correct about a number of things. She made more progress than most philosophers, but that bar is set so unbearably low as to not really be worth mentioning. It's more that she is a better example of what not to become. It's not that she did nothing good. There have even been some decently upvoted Ayn Rand quotes in the threads.

I didn't say LW did this. It was only in this specific essay. I would find it hard to believe that LW disagreed with everything she said. My only problem was with the presentation, and that it would lead to wrong interpretations, or at least interpretations based on falsities.

She quite vehemently signaled agreement with the scientific tribe, I agree. But that's not the same as actually supporting it. (Well, it supports it in some way, but I think you get my point.) <Politics> Given how she felt about the environment (and based on the positions taken by most Objectivist themed organizations (ARI, ARC, etc.)) she probably wouldn't have much respect for anthropomorphic global warming as a theory. I don't know much about the science of it myself, so my opinion isn't worth much, but I believe the predominant opinion on LW is closer to AGW denial is akin to evolution denial. </politics>

Again, I only have problems with the way her positions were portrayed. She was most definitely portrayed as failing to tell her followers to "study science" when in fact she did exactly that. Whether her support of the scientific community was any good is an entirely different discussion which I will probably agree with you on.

I think I failed to make it clear that I do think she is a good example of what not to strive for. I just think that the rhetoric involved in convincing me of that point was deceitful.