Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/10 in all areas

  1. Malcolm Gladwell explores this in his book Blink. You should read it. The short story is that we actually take in a fantastic amount of information with our senses. Our higher brains are able to process this information even when we don't particularly focus on that information. He provides several examples of this, here is one: Several years ago, a sculpture was presented to a museum for purchase. The sculpture was reputed to be a Michaelangelo. The museum had numerous art specialists examine the sculpture for authenticity. To a one, each expert said they could find nothing to indicate the sculpture was not a Michealangelo, but they didn't feel right about it. None of them thought it was a Michaelangelo, but they could not point to any piece of data which led them to believe so. In other words, their "gut" told them it was a fake. The museum went ahead and bought the piece. It was later proved to be a fake. A very, very good fake with a minor flaw. These experts had trained themselves to recognize the genuine and the fake. They knew which data points to a fake or a genuine. Just because this data isn't glaring doesn't mean that it's not there. The brain, and the sense organs which provide it with data, are amazing organs - capable of doing far more than we give them credit for. When someone says, "My gut just doesn't feel right about this," they're really saying, "I have picked up a data point which I'm not quite able to process conciously right now." The appropriate response is to find out more about that data point and to analyze it rationally, not to simply go with it and pretend it's a form of knowledge.
    1 point
  2. I am looking for a more comprehensive assessment of objective truth from the objectivist point of view. Maybe it doesn't offer one? I understand how the phrase "objective truth" can be redundant. How can their be no objective truths? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Objectivist Epistemology hinge on "A is A". Isn't this objectively true? I've always sought to find objective truth, and what I mean by this is truth that is objective of the mind, of interpretation of perception - therefore making it objectively true. This can tie into "A is A", I think, as in it is what it is. Does this make sense? I don't think you can claim truth simply as facts corresponding with reality, or "A is A" - a bit vague and not to hard to skirt around.
    1 point
  3. Yeah, I've read all of those quotes and books. That is about "truth" not "objective truth".
    1 point
  4. For a start, perhaps you'll find the online Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger helpful: Truth Follow the links at the end of that entry for more.
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...