Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Scientists

Rate this topic


Curious Capitalist

Recommended Posts

I guess some of my questions are what are Objectivist stances on pre-history, biological symbiosis, the big bang, black holes, space-time, evolution (which I have learned much about from the threads), the probability of life on other planets.
There really can't be an Objectivist stance, because these are not philosophical questions, they are scientific ones. But I will give you my answers, FWIW. Pre-history -- it existed, there are certain parts of the world and time periods that I can tell you about, others that I don't know about. Biological symbiosis -- another fact, a classical example being bees and flowers. Big bang -- some version of it seems likely to be true but most people don't understand what the theory actually says (there's a lot of popular mythology that the universe was "created" by the bang). Black holes -- something like that could exist, minus some of the mysticism associated with them. Space-time -- that's really just a mathematical massaging of the perceptually obvious space and time. Evolution -- commonplace. Probability of life on other planets -- an unsuitable question for serious science because our knowledge of conditions in the universe and the necessary and sufficient conditions for life are so limited that we can do any better than make stuff up. Like, "But surely if 1 in a million planets is like Earth, and one in a million of those planets have life, then in the billions and billions of stars there must be hundreds and thousands of advanced civiliations, and at least one of them must be named Mongo". That's not responsible science. Science is based on fact, and there are no kinown facts that actually point to life on other planets.
It is obvious that having a Christian ideology impacts a scientists stance on cloning or stem cell research, but does the Objectivist ideology have a similar impact?
Well, the Christian dogma does not address the scientific possibility, and I don't believe that there would be a difference between whether a Christian versus an Objectivist scientist would say that it's possible to clone a sheep or a human. The difference would be whether one would say that you should be allowed to or encouraged to clone a human. The only marginal similarity between the two sides would be probable agreement that tax money should not be used to fund such research, but the similarities end there. The Christian would say that it should simply not be done, whereas the Objectivist would put it in the category of other research-funding questions, namely funding research is not the proper function of government. Objectivists would encourage unfettered research into cloning as expanding knowledge (a definition desideratum for Objectivism), just using private funding.
Science seems to allow for uncertainty, and I guess I took this article as saying Objectivism does not.
No, in fact, Peikoff's exposition in OPAR of the role of certainty is really superlative from a scientific point of view. He clearly lays out when you must be certain, and when you may not be certain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evolution threads you have read and that are being discussed most recently point to the fact that Rand was hesitant to comment on it, not being an expert, but she pointed out facets of what we know today, namely man's conceptual faculty, that proper evolutionary science must explain. That's it. That's really all philsophy has to say on stuff like that.

Kendall, where in her writings, is she "hesitant to comment on" evolution?

I provided direct sources in another thread to what she did say in her writings...do you see hesitation in those comments or in any other of her comments in her writings anywhere? I do not.

The evolution threads you have read and that are being discussed most recently point to the fact that Rand was hesitant to comment on it[...]
(bold emphasis mine)

She's not hesitant to comment on it, she's commented on it. Perhaps there may be some...other..."source" you are gathering said "'fact'" from?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, where in her writings, is she "hesitant to comment on" evolution?

I provided direct sources in another thread to what she did say in her writings...do you see hesitation in those comments or in any other of her comments in her writings anywhere? I do not.

(bold emphasis mine)

She's not hesitant to comment on it, she's commented on it. Perhaps there may be some...other..."source" you are gathering said "'fact'" from?

Hi ammo, maybe I should have said, hesitant to comment on the "validity" of it.

I simply meant, as Curious was asking, does Objectivism take a stance on it. The very first statement of your lengthy quotes would indicate that it does not.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=159015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ammo, maybe I should have said, hesitant to comment on the "validity" of it.

But even still. That first sentence of my lengthy quote...there was no hesitation on her part:

I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.

I think a better way of saying it, is by removing that "hesitant" or hesitation part of it that you included altogether:

She didn't comment on the validity of the theory of evolution as such, but what she did say was...[insert above quote of hers]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really can't be an Objectivist stance, because these are not philosophical questions, they are scientific ones.

Probability of life on other planets -- an unsuitable question for serious science because our knowledge of conditions in the universe and the necessary and sufficient conditions for life are so limited that we can do any better than make stuff up. Like, "But surely if 1 in a million planets is like Earth, and one in a million of those planets have life, then in the billions and billions of stars there must be hundreds and thousands of advanced civiliations, and at least one of them must be named Mongo". That's not responsible science. Science is based on fact, and there are no kinown facts that actually point to life on other planets.

Thank you, again, for all the great responses! I am definitely going with the theme that Objectivist scientists are not significantly influenced by their philosophy, except that they rely heavily on reason.

David, I agree that the issue of federal funding may be the biggest difference between an Objectivist and run of the mill secular humanist scientist, but I cannot agree that the probability of life on other planets in not serious science. This is one of the most fundamentally huge questions humanity faces—are we alone in the universe? This question led people to create gods and spirits and all sorts of unhealthy illusions, which many still follow to this day, just to answer the question and feel less alone. From what science knows, there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere, with the presence of water—a key ingredient in the formation of life—found on Mars, or the oceans of Europa. All science begins with a hypothesis, so why would hypothesizing that life exists off Earth would be irresponsible? We do know enough to know it’s highly probable, at least enough to entertain the notion. Does Objectivism also consider statistics an irresponsible branch of mathematics? If so, then I understand how searching for life on other planets may be an irresponsible effort. Otherwise, I think it is one of our most noble attempts to understand the universe.

Once again, I appreciate the candor and the help that everyone has given me as I write my paper. I plan on finishing up tonight, but I will definitely keep coming here to learn more about Objectivism! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I agree that the issue of federal funding may be the biggest difference between an Objectivist and run of the mill secular humanist scientist, but I cannot agree that the probability of life on other planets in not serious science. This is one of the most fundamentally huge questions humanity faces—are we alone in the universe?
Okay: this is a good way to do some applied Objectivism. To begin with, I don't see how it a "fundamental" question. It is a question, certainly, but compare that to "how does the human brain operate so as to create a conceptual consciousness", which is a really fundamental question. So to begin with, we need to have an understanding of what it means to be a "fundamental" question. Since we are talking about science and not religion, the answer has to be about something in science. I'll let you think about why you think it's a fundamental question.
This question led people to create gods and spirits and all sorts of unhealthy illusions, which many still follow to this day, just to answer the question and feel less alone.
Yeah, but that doesn't make it a scientific question or a fundamental one. It's a metaphysician's question (I mean that in the bad sense, as in, go to a bookstore and find the section on philosophy, religion and metaphysics). There is no denying that religion has all sorts of horrifying consequences for the lives of men, but still we're looking for a scientific question.
From what science knows, there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere, with the presence of water—a key ingredient in the formation of life—found on Mars, or the oceans of Europa.
This is really where the discussion should be. One claim is that there is a correlation between the presence of water and the presence of life. But that's not a well established correlation, because as you say "from what science knows", life only exists on Earth, but yet water exists in a lot of places where there is no evidence of life. In addition, we lack a causal model that say "Life arises by the following physical process..., where water is a mandatory element in that chemical reaction". We could contrast that with Kolker's favorite Krebs cycle shtick about why a cow can't jump over the moon -- we understand scientifically what would be required.

A very broad scientific question would be "what causes life", and if we had some kind of an answer to that question, and a knowledge of the conditions in the universe, we might start to construct an actual scientific question about life on other planets. But there's no science involved in just asserting "Surely there must be life on other planets"

All science begins with a hypothesis, so why would hypothesizing that life exists off Earth would be irresponsible?
Here we can apply basic Objectivism, especially the (ir)relevance of the arbitrary and the centrality of the senses to human knowledge. I refer you to OPAR chapter 5. Briefly, the point is that man gains knowledge by perception of reality, and not by randomly-uncaused conclusion-drawing. It is not the case that all science begins with a hypothesis, in fact, no science begins with a hypothesis. All science begins with observations of reality. Those observations lead to the formation of a hypothesis, which can then be tested by observing if the other predictions of the hypothesis are proven. Science does not procede by arbitrarily setting forth a random hypothesis, rather, it procedes by setting forth a hypothesis that is at least possibly true (hence the hypothesis that you form has a definite relation to the evidence that causes you to form the hypothesis).

As you read through OPAR 5 (I encourage it very strongly if you haven't done so already), you will see that when there perceptual evidence for a conclusion, then the conclusion is possible; there is a continuum where some evidence renders a conclusion possible, and the evidence may progress to the point that it becomes probable, or even certain. But without any evidence at all, the conclusion should not even be considered. (The reason, as Peikoff explains in detail, is that considering an arbitrary, unsupported conclusion is a repudiation of man's only valid means of gaining knowledge, namely the integration and differentiation of perceptions using logic).

Because we do not know at all whether the presence of water is a necessary or a sufficient condition for life (because we don't know what creates life), we can't estimate the probability that Mars or any other location in the universe has life.

We do know enough to know it’s highly probable, at least enough to entertain the notion.
I disagree: if you can present a causal model of life and factual data regarding the presence of water in the universe, then you may be able to establish that life on another planet is possible. We don't know that it is possible, much less probable. One thing to keep in mind that "possible" doesn't mean "imaginable". It is imaginable that a person can leap up into the sun and pass through the core unscathed, but not possible. I can imagine there being life on another planet (but I also imagine it's a silicon-based life-form swimmming in a bath of ethanol), but there is no evidence for such a thing, thus it is not possible. And in the absence of a full-enough knowledge of conditions on other planets or what actually causes life, I don't see that there is even conceptual evidence.
Does Objectivism also consider statistics an irresponsible branch of mathematics?
Not per se. But any statistician will or should remind you of the prerequisites for drawing valid statistically-based conclusions. First, all members of the population must have an equal chance of being included in the sample. But that is plainly not the case. What is our sample of knowledge of where there is life? Well, there's basically Earth, the Moon, Mars. Now consider the gajillion planets (and moons) in the universe -- we don't have a random sample. So we can't establish any valid statistical correlation between presence of water and presence of life. We have not tested alternative hypotheses, such as that life depends on distance from the sun, or that it is caused by a particular kind of atmosphere, so the variables are totally uncontrolled. Finally, we can't even say with confidence that there is no life on the moon or on Mars. We have seen no evidence of life, but we have not actually looked all that hard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we've been of help here. May we read it when it's done?

Does Objectivism also consider statistics an irresponsible branch of mathematics?

No, of course not, but as Peikoff so wonderfully states - statistics are just hints towards something to be investigated - they aren't facts in themselves. They suggest a possible relationship, but they aren't actual evidence of causal relation.

There's nothing wrong with hypothesising life existing on other planets, since life managed to thrive here, and there are more planets than we are even able to record (physically, we simply could never catalogue them all with current methods - and even then, we wouldn't know if we'd found them all!). Life growing on another planet is only as unlikely as life growing on this planet is! :)

Edit: Yeah, David, beat me to the punch, Mr I-Can-Type-5000-words-in-6-minutes.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...