|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2004 : 11:55:30
|
Hi. I was reading through an Ayn Rand style Objectivist web site and they claimed Objectivists believe true knowledge is possible via rationalism and logic and that by contrast Skepticism says nothing can truly be known and everything is in doubt. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about Objectivism? Was Ayn Rand a babe?
EDIT: Corrected Ms. Rand's name.
|
-Chaloobi
|
Edited by - chaloobi on 09/10/2004 10:30:28
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2004 : 12:54:50 [Permalink]
|
Question is are they they type of objectionists who feel Rynd was infallable? (Of which their are many)
Personally I believe the two styles go hand in hand and their understanding of Skeptics is misguided, they imply that we never draw conclusions and act like uberdoubting monks or something.
Really I see skepticism as the search for true knowledge via rationalism, logic and the fundimental ability to doubt experts. (such as Rynd) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2004 : 13:30:27 [Permalink]
|
Ayn Rand's objectivism failed within her own cult, so far as I know, which makes it less than compelling as a philosophical base. To my eye, she did not have many babe-like qualities.
And skepticism is, indeed, the philosophy that nothing can truly be known. It is not, however, the idea that one should doubt everything, but instead just that the conclusions we make might be wrong, and we should take care to think about them carefully.
Evolution, for example, or geocentrism. New evidence might emerge tomorrow which could topple either of these theories. It is highly unlikely that such evidence will show up on any particular day, but the probability is not zero, and we - as skeptics - need to keep that in mind when evaluating claims.
The only fields in which something can be 100% true are logic and mathematics.
Here's a bit from The Skeptic's Dictionary:...Finding ways to combat dogmatism is still the central element of Philosophical Skepticism. Absolute certainty is not needed, according to Skeptics, either for science or for daily living. Science can do quite well even if limited to appearances and to probabilities. We can find guides for daily living, including moral principles, without needing absolute certainty. We can figure out what principles are likely to lead us to what we desire: a peaceful, happy life. ...
Dogmatic philosophies have become rare. The age of metaphysics is long gone, indicating that the Skeptics have won the war with the Dogmatists. Logic is about the only philosophical area left where professional philosophers still speak of absolute certainty with a straight face. The chance of another Plato or Hegel arising in the 21st century seems very slim. Most philosophers today content themselves with probabilistic arguments based on empirical knowledge and the application of logical principles to concepts. And here is Michael Shermer on Ayn Rand. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2004 : 14:40:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And skepticism is, indeed, the philosophy that nothing can truly be known. It is not, however, the idea that one should doubt everything, but instead just that the conclusions we make might be wrong, and we should take care to think about them carefully.
Heh, sounds like an old thread, doesn't it?
quote:
The only fields in which something can be 100% true are logic and mathematics.
But even in mathematics, in a long complex proof, there can be hidden error, no? I mean, that guy that showed x^a+y^a=z^a is not true for any integers when a is greater than 2, his proof was +200 pages. So can we even say that for mathematics? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2004 : 19:26:28 [Permalink]
|
Philosophies are ways of knowing the world. For example, science is about "obvservable phenomena," which is where the uncertainty creeps in. We may not have observed phenomena which prove our theories wrong, and we can never know if we've observed enough to fully discount the possibility.
And, at the basest level, everything I am experiencing now could be a bizarre fever-dream, and I'm really a three-armed, six-toed sloth-man on planet Fpwioqhf. I cannot tell for sure.
Math, on the other hand, is about abstract definitions which we ourselves have created, and which exist as wholly intangible entities. Either 1+1=2, or it doesn't. An error in a 200-page proof is not evidence of an uncertainty in math itself, but exists only because some human wrote something incorrectly (or thought incorrectly). 32 + 42 = 52 is absolutely, 100% true. In a 200-page proof, the final equation is still either 100% true or 100% false. The time needed for other mathematicians to figure out if it's true or false may be quite large, but that's only because of the complexity of the math, not because of uncertainties built into math itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 06:51:05 [Permalink]
|
Well, Ms. Rand's face leaves a lot to be desired. No question about that. She looks like one of those East German athletes that failed their gender test in some long forgotten Olympics.
EDIT: Corrected Ms. Rand's name. Again. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/10/2004 10:34:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 09:25:04 [Permalink]
|
My little rant:
I think the Objectivists failure is their claim that we can, through reason, arrive at absolute truths. In order to do that an assumption has to be made that they have at their disposal enough evidence to arrive at an absolute truth. (Shermer talked about this some in the link that Dave provided.) Using methods that we skeptics would sometimes approve of, they take that extra step into dogma land. They have become what they detest. A religion. Not a god or spiritualy based religion but a religious like belief that they have cornered the market on truth. Their conclusions need not be tentative. Armed with the truth they can make absolute judgments about such things as political systems, morality in culture and whatever ells they have "reasoned" out. I suppose this is a failing of many philosophies. Any search for "truth" that results in a black and white view must be regarded as suspect. Like any group that lays claim to the truth, we skeptics are a thorn in their side...
I think they are full of shit. I view Objectivism as a belief system tailor made for adolescents and young adults who think they can or do know everything. Most Objectivists that I have known eventually grew out of it. I regard Ayn Rand as a minor, wrong headed and reactionary philosopher.
Small Edits... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 10:18:46 [Permalink]
|
| Come on, guys. Disagree with her all you like, but it's A-Y-n R-A-n-d. Only her first name is spelled funkily. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 10:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Come on, guys. Disagree with her all you like, but it's A-Y-n R-A-n-d. Only her first name is spelled funkily.
LMAO - I couldn't remember if it was her first or second or both. Thanks for correcting that. (smart ass). |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 10:33:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
My little rant:
I think the Objectivists failure is their claim that we can, through reason, arrive at absolute truths. In order to do that an assumption has to be made that they have at their disposal enough evidence to arrive at an absolute truth. (Shermer talked about this some in the link that Dave provided.) Using methods that we skeptics would sometimes approve of, they take that extra step into dogma land. They have become what they detest. A religion. Not a god or spiritualy based religion but a religious like belief that they have cornered the market on truth. Their conclusions need not be tentative. Armed with the truth they can make absolute judgments about such things as political systems, morality in culture and whatever ells they have "reasoned" out. I suppose this is a failing of many philosophies. Any search for "truth" that results in a black and white view must be regarded as suspect. Like any group that lays claim to the truth, we skeptics are a thorn in their side...
I think they are full of shit. I view Objectivism as a belief system tailor made for adolescents and young adults who think they can or do know everything. Most Objectivists that I have known eventually grew out of it. I regard Ayn Rynd as a minor, wrong headed and reactionary philosopher.
Small Edits...
I think you raise the most important point - the flaw in Objectivism that kills it. Anyone who believes they know the absolute truth about anything is treading on dangerous ground. Dangerous for him and/or dangerous for anyone that disagrees.
EDIT: On further note, I think Objectivism's love of the meritocracy, though a very American sentiement, is fundamentally flawed. It can only be fair if one buys in to the fantasy that all people are born equal - genetically, socially and economically. Clearly this is not the case, and never has been, anywhere in the world ever. (Is that too categorical?)
EDIT2: And the idea there should be no government regulation of business is absurd. She ignores the wisdom in the Tragedy of the Commons. Basic human nature makes such things necessary. If she were correct on this point, then human nature would be such that no government is necessary at all. Harldy..... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/10/2004 10:39:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 10:44:37 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Anyone who believes they know the absolute truth about anything is treading on dangerous ground.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the above is based upon your obvious skeptical, doubting biases. The Objectivist sees no "dangerous ground" here, only the self-evident Truth-with-a-capital-T. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 11:49:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DaveW:
Y-n R-A-n-d. Only her first name is spelled funkily.
When I wrote my little rant, I at first spelled her name Rand. Being the speller that I am, I lost confidence in my spelling the moment I saw another spelling. I could have easily checked it out. Oh well, such is the curse of being a poor speller... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 12:08:11 [Permalink]
|
| I'm standing by my misspelling, if only to aggrivate Objectivists. 8) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 12:12:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Anyone who believes they know the absolute truth about anything is treading on dangerous ground.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the above is based upon your obvious skeptical, doubting biases. The Objectivist sees no "dangerous ground" here, only the self-evident Truth-with-a-capital-T.
Belief in absolute truth = dangerous ground, whether or not one recognizes that is irrelevant. I realize that Hitler's absolute truth was not irrelevant to the Jews and that's not what I'm referring to. Hitler was still on dangerous ground. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2004 : 13:26:45 [Permalink]
|
Semantics is a silly approach to discuss nuances. The origin of the word skeptic probably never contained such nuances. Why not just discuss the different philosophies instead of claiming to know what philosophy a group of persons holds.
I consider myself a skeptic but my philosophy is very much on the reality vs the theoretical side of the continuum. Show me the evidence, but when there is enough, I don't see the value in arguing absolute proofs. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
