tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post1675686601879511593..comments2023-05-03T10:39:16.695-07:00Comments on Earth Justice: Who Was Ayn Rand?earthjustice.blogspot.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06285940024413114186noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-59948786434060401132008-05-07T22:42:00.000-07:002008-05-07T22:42:00.000-07:00Just because we don't have logically certain knowl...Just because we don't have logically certain knowledge doesn't mean we can't convince people. We can convince people if we have good arguments and use relevant examples. The subprime meltdown happened because regulations were relaxed. Global warming is caused by the increasing emissions of carbon dioxide by human beings. I find those convincing arguments. I might be wrong. The subprime meltdown may have been caused by too much government intervention in the mortgage markets Global warming may be caused by the sun. Most scientists don't think so, but they could be wrong. <BR/> There are more or less convincing arguments but no perfect arguments about reality because there is a not a one-to -one correspondence between concepts and reality. Nobody's arguing about whether the sun will come up tomorrow except the rare individual. But some people are arguing about the weather and about climate.<BR/><BR/> You think you've got the objective truth, but you are rejecting everything that contradicts it and by doing that you're preventing yourself from learning from your mistakes. Oh, but you have the objective truth so that must mean you never make mistakes. Kinda tempts you, doesn't it. <BR/> When I say we contradict ourselves I mean that as human beings we contradict ourselves. We contain multitudes. It's in Walt Whitman, not Walden. "leaves of grass" is a book of poetry written in the late nineteenth century by Walt Whitman. Google it, if you dare, Mwa ha ha.earthjustice.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285940024413114186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-9707133580440001642008-05-07T20:51:00.000-07:002008-05-07T20:51:00.000-07:00"We should believe what we know is true...you cann..."We should believe what we know is true...you cannot prove knowledge you can only disprove it." So you can't know anything? Or you cannot convince someone else of what is known? I had always thought that you can't prove a negative but you're saying you can't prove a positive. I can know something through my senses and every human being has senses. We can all know that the sun is yellow, changes colors during sunsets and sunrises, it might be hidden by clouds, and may even be blocked by the moon. It seems like proof to me. <BR/><BR/>If I see the sun come up everyday, and everyone who's ever written anything from the beginning of written history has seen the sun come up everyday, and physicists who study such things tell me the sun is going to come up everyday for billions of years, then I would say that we <B>know</B> the sun is going to come up. The professional philosophers may say we can't be sure if it's the same atoms, or that the sun could be gone because we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes, or that I didn't actually ever wake up and it's all a dream, or it disappears when I close my eyes, or my eyes don't work right and that sun looks absolutely nothing like what every human being sees. I say we know that they are wrong. You can believe that the sun may not come up tomorrow until the cows come home and it's not going to wipe out all of human history or the laws of physics, or that my eye doctor tells me there's nothing wrong with my vision. I am infallible on that point. <BR/><BR/>Let's face it. That example of the weather is really phony. The weather can change because that is what weather is. It's the definition. A rock is not weather. A rock can erode, it can break after being hit, it might change from limestone to lime, but that's all in what we know rocks are. That's not the same as saying it's going to be sitting there one day and then, 'poof,' it's gone the next. <BR/><BR/>Part and parcel of knowing something is knowing how much we know of that thing. Twenty years ago I knew that every tree had green leaves in the summer until some of the them turned brown in the fall. Then I saw a tree with purple leaves in the summer. Guess what? I now know that most trees have green leaves in the summer and that the Japanese Maple has purple leaves. So what I know about trees, I am certain of--including knowing the limitations of that definition. If someone were to tell me that there's a red and white candy-striped tree leaf in New Guinea, I'd still call him a liar. Then he can show me a leaf and I'll check to see if it was painted. If it wasn't, I've learned some more and I'll probably owe him some money and an apology. It's not like I don't know anything, or even enough, about trees just because I might learn something new. <BR/><BR/>I totally and completely disagree that we are always contradicting ourselves. Even the most profound discoveries of science have never <I>contradicted</I> prior discoveries. They've led to refining theory and an ever fuller understanding of ultimate reality, but a desk is still a desk even though we know it's made up of mostly space.<BR/><BR/>Why read Walden? I'm betting it's more of the same stuff shoveled out by someone who's never had to draw conclusions in a lab or prove to their manager why changing the production line will reduce manufacturing time. As a people, we would be still be living in caves if we didn't know that we can know. <BR/><BR/>People who actually believe that the sun might not be there tomorrow or that the world really looks like a Salvador Dali painting and we just can't see it must be miserable all the time. It must be awful to insist at all times that anything at all could change. Now I feel sorry for those guys.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15797561656420404838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-14401683510059268532008-05-07T13:41:00.000-07:002008-05-07T13:41:00.000-07:00Kim, thanks for your reply. Of course we should b...Kim, thanks for your reply. Of course we should believe what we know is true. You are right that we cannot function without doing this. But I believe one thing and you believe something different. How do we determine who is really right? There is no sure way of doing this. <BR/> We will get a lot further if we test our knowledge against the world and against the arguments of others. But if we believe we have the absolute truth how do we know that? You cannot prove knowledge you can only disprove it. That's how we learn. Of course we also learn from imitation of what's worked before. But what's worked before doesn't always work in the future. Outside conditions, like the weather, change.<BR/><BR/> To be human is to be fallible. We are always contradicting ourselves. We contain multitudes, We are not simple. Read Walt Whitman dude.earthjustice.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285940024413114186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-451984769238211992008-05-07T13:27:00.000-07:002008-05-07T13:27:00.000-07:00Anonymous, thanks for replying, albeit anonymously...Anonymous, thanks for replying, albeit anonymously. Certainty is something psychological. I feel certain about what I say here and so do you but that's not to say that either of us is right. There is no way we can prove our theories. But we can refute them with enough strong evidence. <BR/> Different models of the world are different ways of simplifying. The trick is to not to leave out the important stuff. If we believe that we have certain truth we will not be open to improvement. We will not "see" evidence that puts our position into serious question. <BR/> Here's an example: Objectivists don't see the evidence of global warming because it's a problem that cannot be solved without massive government intervention and international cooperation. This contradicts their definition of good government.<BR/> Meanwhile, the rest of the world sees global warming as a huge threat. Your "objective" position makes the idea of a vast left-wing conspiracy amongst international scientists more likely than the actuality of human caused global warming. But to everyone else, your scientific conspiracy idea is laughable.earthjustice.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285940024413114186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-16014423270070161882008-05-07T13:07:00.000-07:002008-05-07T13:07:00.000-07:00Mark, thanks for your comments. We don't know ...Mark, thanks for your comments. <BR/> We don't know the truth. We can try to approach the truth - the scientific method works well because it has rigerous methods and above all because of continual peer review. Every theory is subject to criticism from peers. <BR/> But we can never be certain because there is not a one-to -one correspondence between our concepts and reality. Reality is infinitely multifaceted, whereas our concepts are always simplifications of that reality.<BR/> Take your two examples: the nature of man and government. You say man needs freedom in order to think, live, and flourish. I say humans are fallible, therefore they must be open to other points of view. Two definitions of "man", that treat different aspects of multifaceted reality.<BR/> You say government is a means of weilding force against man. I say government is a tool for providing public goods and eliminating public bads. Two definitions of government that treat different aspects of reality.earthjustice.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285940024413114186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-35532017974413166062008-05-07T07:31:00.000-07:002008-05-07T07:31:00.000-07:00I'm not a philosopher, but in saying that because ...I'm not a philosopher, but in saying that because we can't know everything about everything at all times means we shouldn't believe anything we know just doesn't make sense. We don't know everything about the stars in the sky--should we then discount the idea of stars at all? Are you saying that because we are human we should give up on the idea that we can ever know <B>anything</B>?<BR/><BR/>We will always discover new information, but that doesn't mean the old information is wrong. It also doesn't mean that we cannot trust the old information. We certainly can form wonderfully accurate conclusions about the world around us that are always becoming more accurate as we learn more. <BR/><BR/>I just don't understand some philosophers. They will dismiss the entire world while they live in it and pay bills and insist that we can't possibly know anything as they work with knowledge they themselves have gained and proven to be valid day after day in their ordinary lives. How can one trust someone living with such contradictions?tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15797561656420404838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-31909007065848921072008-05-06T09:14:00.000-07:002008-05-06T09:14:00.000-07:00First off Rush Limbaugh is not a follower of Ayn R...First off Rush Limbaugh is not a follower of Ayn Rand and its a stretch to say Ron Paul is.<BR/><BR/>Second, your argument against her epistemology is wrong as well. Objective reality is attainable by humans. Just because man is fallible doesn't means he is wrong all the time. Man is capable of error and he is capable of accuracy.<BR/><BR/>Lastly your argument is a glaring contradiction. If man cannot obtain objective knowledge than how can you assert that man cannot attain objective knowledge? You argument in essence says I objectively know that you can't objectively know anything.<BR/><BR/>You state, "Knowledge cannot be objective because objective reality is not attainable by humans."<BR/><BR/>Do you know that objectively? How could you? See the contradiction?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-84729382580832742942008-05-06T06:07:00.000-07:002008-05-06T06:07:00.000-07:00By closing their “objective” system from contrary ...<I>By closing their “objective” system from contrary evidence and ruling out most forms of government intervention they have helped to drastically reduce the tools available to build capitalist solutions to environmental and financial problems.</I><BR/><BR/>Objectivists advocate thinking in principles because they are a valuable and necessary tool to deal with the plethora of concrete situations men have to deal with.<BR/><BR/>Yes, principles automatically exclude a wide range of possible actions, but when properly formed, this is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Once you have looked at the nature of man (who needs freedom in order to think, live, and flourish) and the nature of government (which is a means of wielding force against men), and look at the history of men and governments over milennia, you can validly conclude that it is <I>always</I> bad for government to interfere in the activities of men that do not involve force or fraud.<BR/><BR/>Thinking and acting on a rationally formed principle is not a closed-minded refusal to look at relevant evidence; it's using one's mind to the fullest, distilling your knowledge into powerful (because true and broadly-applicable) tools for living successfully.<BR/><BR/>If you think Objectivist principles are wrong, you ought to argue against them and present the contrary evidence you say exists. Attacking the very goal of gathering and considering evidence -- arriving at true principles -- and the very idea that certainty is possible puts one outside the realm of rational discourse. <BR/><BR/>And really, who is the one ignoring evidence? The man who rigorously examines the fundamental nature of things and the examples across centuries and arrives at a principle? Or the one who denies the need for such a process or ignores it once complete, and demands that you "pragmatically" consider a narrow out-of-context instance in isolation, irrespective of all the evidence that has come before?Mark Wickenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348015131710197067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6773876713591654358.post-78416553681075927392008-05-06T05:30:00.000-07:002008-05-06T05:30:00.000-07:00The fatal flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy is her epi...<I>The fatal flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy is her epistemology. Knowledge cannot be objective because objective reality is not attainable by humans.</I><BR/><BR/>Why not? And: Are you sure that's an objective fact?<BR/><BR/><I>All human knowledge is fallible and thus open to improvement.</I><BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand did not disagree that men are fallible. There would be no need for epistemology, or any method to gain knowledge if they weren't.<BR/><BR/><I>Declaring one's own ideas infallible leads to excluding competing systems of thought, some of which may be valid. This means that you close yourself off from any evidence that might weaken or disprove your theory. Then how can you learn from experience?</I><BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand believed <I>certainty</I> is possible, which is what you really seem to be arguing against. Fallibility does not preclude certainty. Again, it means simply that a specific method is needed in order to reach valid conclusions. If you have followed that method scrupulously and looked at all the relevant evidence, then you can be certain.<BR/><BR/>Are scientists who have studied Darwin and subsequent evidence on evolution wrong when they refuse to consider the "evidence" of creationists?<BR/><BR/>Certainty grounded in observation and rigorous logic is not a bad thing. It is the goal of a normal, mentally healthy person.Mark Wickenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348015131710197067noreply@blogger.com