The Marxist Professor Case

One of the peculiar points of contention between Kelley and Peikoff is that of the "Marxist Professor." Peikoff holds that such a man cannot be honestly mistaken - that he is evading the truth. Kelley holds that you don't have enough information to pass judgment.

I suppose I disagree with both of them, in the following sort of way. Given current history, and the Marxist academics I have known, I do pass a presumptive judgment of intellectual dishonesty. I am willing to be convinced otherwise in any particular case, but I'm going in with a strong presumption of "guilt". I'm not going to assume that he shoplifts. I'm not going to assume that he is consumed with envy. But I'm going to assume a certain kind of fact-unfriendliness in his political views.

We don't have subpoena power over anyone else's innermost thoughts. We rarely get to play Father Confessor to our ideological opponents. We go ahead and make judgments anyway, because that's what minds do - they make judgments. And even if you try to withhold your conscious judgment, your subconscious will make an emotional evaluation for you.

Judgments come in degrees of certainty, of course, ranging from educated guess-work to logical proof. I think my presumption of "guilt" falls closer to the educated-guess side.

Imagine a Marxist Professor
Who never goes to a confessor.
Can one conclude
He's a dishonest dude?
You can if you are a good guesser.