From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:49:22 GMT

In article <BxGCxI.tx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <BxEDMn.Jwv@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <BxBLJD.8Aw@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>  The problem is that Randianism is not content to serve
>>>  a middlebrow market as a middlebrow philosophy.  They
>>>  *claim* to be of a rigorous calibre.  

>>And it's true too...it's just not presented in the unintelligible style
>>of academic philosophers?  Whether it's rigorous by your definition or not,
>>does that mean it's false?  Or do you even believe in falsehood?

>  Well, I've been quite clear what my criteria are:  testability, 
>  falsifiability, operational definitions, objective metrics, etc.
>  Rand's theories meet none of these criteria, so yes, they are
>  false.  

Depending on how you define these, you are right.  Objectivism DOES fail
when analyzed from a logical positivist point of view.  If it didn't
it would just be a special application of LPism.  On what basis do you
conclude that these criteria are correct?  A simple example of where 
falsifiability fails is in the area of the objectivist axioms.  The 
fact that you are conscious is certainly not falsifiable (since nothing
could constitute evidence to the contrary) yet you are unjustified
in claiming that such a presupposition is false since consciousness is
a precondition of that denial.  What do you think the status of such 
statements is?  False?

How do you claim to ground these criteria?  How do you know they are right?

Of course, if you look at it from a certain point of view, objectivist ideas
often do meet your criteria (given some presumptions you cannot deny like
identity, and consciousness).  You want to test out Rand's ethics?
Look at people you have known.  Who lives better lives?  Thieves?  Slaves?
Murderers?  Liars?  Dictators?  Or honest free independent men?  When you
look at social systems, which promote the lives of the citizens?  Fascism?
Monarchy?  Socialism?  Military dictatorship?  or Capitalist Republics?

>>>  They claim to 
>>>  have an exacting, logical, provable model on which to 
>>>  base their conclusions.  I attack them not just because
>>>  their model is wrong, but because they misrepresent
>>>  themselves. 

>>Do you think that claims can be true?  false?  Your attack on objectivism
>>is that it claims to be completely true.  Are you completely sure that your
>>criticism is valid?  See any contradictions there?

>  Again I'm defining "true" by the same criteria that I apply to the
>  physical sciences.   I have no problem saying that, say, physics, 
>  or chemistry, is "true", even though what they both consist of is
>  abstract models of what is regarded to be an objective external
>  universe.  

Ah, but is the existence of objective external reality falsifiable?

>"Progress" is defined as refining the precision of the
>  model.   This is consistent with the underlying epistemology of
>  science which is essentially logical empiricism or logical posi-
>  tivism.   

>>>  Randianism claims that they ARE better or truer than
>>>  another.

>>Any you claim YOUR philosophy is better and truer than objectivism.
>>Should I complain about your philosophy on that basis?

>  "True" is a function of what your epistemology is!  

Quite true.  The question is whether any epistemology is better than any other
and if so, how can that be determined.  I have my answer to this.  Do you?

>  I've at least
>  been quite clear what mine is.  I believe Randiansim is based on 
>  some variation of Aristotelianism.   

More or less.  To generalize, I would say it is Aristotle minus the remnants
of Plato.

>  If you want to claim that
>  your epistemological model presents a better, more accurate, or
>  more repeatable picture of the universe, or even that these
>  criterai are irrelevant, you're welcome to try.

Well, the most straight-forward attack I can think of is that the
falsifiability theory of truth has to deny self-evident truths (such as
that you are conscious and that reality exists, and that everything
has identity).

>>>  E.g., chemistry works better than alchemy at doing the 
>>>  things alchemy purported to do.  Scientific medicine can
>>>  cure diseases that medicine relying on spirits and magic
>>>  cannot.

>>So, why not criticize science on the basis that it claims to be better than
>>superstition?  

>  Why would that be a critique of science?

I was pointing out that anyone who attacks objectivism on the basis that it
claims to be better than other philosophies, would also have to 
criticize science on the basis that it claims to be better than alchemy.
It would by definition be a "critique" (a false one of course).

>>It would seem that your gripe is that you bring a presumption that ethical
>>issues are inherently subjective to the table before you start.

>  Look, you're being dense about this:  from a logical positivist point
>  of view it's up to YOU to show that ethical issues are objective
>  since YOU'RE the one making the claim.   Even Randianism/Aritotelianism
>  does not default to assuming that all unproven claims are automatically
>  true!  

Of course.  I never said any such thing.  Have you ever read the arguments
yourself?  Or do you want me to restate them?

>> The fact that you "feel" that ethics is a subjective matter does not
>> constitute proof that you are right.

>  Again, I make no such assertion.   All I assert is that no evidence
>  has been presented that ethics DOES have some objective reality.

Again I have to ask whether you are aware of the objectivist argument
in favor of it's ethics?  Are you making the claim that there are no
ethical positions any better or worse than any others?  Say, that the
ethical ideas of Charlie Manson are no better or worse than yours?

If you have not encountered the objectivist arguments in ethics, I can
synopsize them for you.

--Brian  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4815 talk.politics.misc:59125