From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:15:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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:
>>  "Twinkies" has a successful market niche meeting the snack
>>  needs of millions.  They are junk food, of course, but
>>  they cheerfully admit this.  They don't claim to be of
>>  gourmet quality, nor do they claim to be health food.
>
>>  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.  


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



>>  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?


>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!  


> 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.
  This is freshman logic; you've either been out of college too long
  or you never studied logic in the first place.


---peter




Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory