Can Objectivism be refuted by reality?

[crizon]

Can objectivism be refuted by reality? If so, then how?

If so, must it be an ideal objectivist system or society for it to be refuted? If not, how close must it be?

I'm aiming more at the concrete solutions that objectivism provides (IE individual rights, property rights and capitalism) but I don't want to exclude the axioms.

[Greebo]

Your questions are so broad as to be almost meaningless.

Are you talking metaphysically? Epistemologically? Ethically? Politically? Aesthetically?

I suspect that you need to post a great deal more to explain your question before anyone will be able to understand where you're going with this.

[DavidOdden]

Can objectivism be refuted by reality?

That is the only way anything can be refuted.

If so, then how?

The same way as with anything else.

If so, must it be an ideal objectivist system or society for it to be refuted? If not, how close must it be?

That doesn't mean anything. The object of refutation is a proposition, not an society. Try asking the question literally.

I'm aiming more at the concrete solutions that objectivism provides (IE individual rights, property rights and capitalism) but I don't want to exclude the axioms.

"Aiming at" only suggests a vague direction. Do you have an actual purpose in mind?

[Jake_Ellison]

I hope anyone who answers Yes is ready to provide an instance of an event in reality which refuted Objectivism. Otherwise, the question is what crizon would call "theoretical", and has to be answered with "theory", not imaginary concretes which don't exist in reality.

The axioms cannot be proven wrong, since the validity of "proof" rests on them. If the axioms were false, what we call "proving something" would be meaningless too. For logic to exist, existence has to exist first, indentity has to exist second, and we have to have consciousness third, to understand and use it.

As for Capitalism, what do you mean by refuted? What would it take for you to consider Capitalism refuted, and why?

[tito]

Do you mean to ask, if an aspect of reality were not so - would Objectivism be false?

The answer to that is yes.

For example, if it was true that A is not A, or that a stone could be all green and all brown at the same time, that man had no means of observing nature etc. Then Objectivism would not be appropriate.

Then again, neither would any philosophy... or any thought or invention for that matter.

Nothing in *this* reality (which, of course, is the only reality) refutes Objectivism - because Objectivism is a system designed for man around reality.

You might as well ask "If 2 did not equal 2, would 2 + 2 = 4"

[D'kian]

You might as well ask "If 2 did not equal 2, would 2 + 2 = 4"

I'm reminded of the old BBS era tagline "2+2=5 for very large values of 2"

[phibetakappa]

Can objectivism be refuted by reality?

First, there is no valid concept of "refuting" that does not involve reality. Therefore, to state, "such and such, refuted 'by' reality", makes it sound as if there are several types of "refutation;" refutations which use reality and are thus correctly spoken of as, "refuted by reality” and those that are not.

Second, when speaking of the general subject of philosophy, such as what is taught in school, (as opposed to what Ayn Rand called her philosophy) there is a concept of "little 'o' " objectivism. The little 'o' objectivism is used in ethics, metaphysics and (in my experience) less often with epistemology. Often, it’s used to designate many different objects, and often it’s used with very little basis.

When speaking of Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is proper to use the big 'O' to designate we are speaking of a specialized subject, and more importantly, we are speaking of an entire system of philosophy.

Now, it is possible to refute the little ‘o’ objectivism, as described in the history of philosophy in many of the cases where I've seen the word used. The reason being, often the use of the term "objectivism," is used to designate some arbitrarily drawn class of ideas, and thus their formation and usage are not based on the facts of reality, therefore, it is possible to show they contradict the facts of reality.

If your question means,

“Is it possible to refute Objectivism by showing some of its basic tenants contradict the facts of reality?”

I.e., is “Objectivism, “a member of a certain kind of object, which have the kind of nature that allows them to be logically validated?

Yes. Objectivism is a system of philosophy, which purports to accurately describe the nature of man, of existence, and the necessary conditions for man to live and/or flourish in existence; thus it is a system of propositions which claim to accurately describe the nature of reality; thus, because it is a system of claims purporting to describe reality, it like any other claim or system of claims can be validated, verified, or checked against the facts of reality.

In other words, it is in the range of possibility, to demonstrate any idea or system of ideas contradicts the facts of reality, if the given idea is claiming to correspond to the facts of reality.

When a claim is put forth by someone, which is purporting to describe how things are in reality (which is purporting to describe the truth about things), then by definition, one should be able to examine the basis of the claim and validate that it does or does not correspond to the facts.

Edited April 22, 2009 by phibetakappa

[DavidOdden]

“Is it possible to refute Objectivism by showing some of its basic tenants contradict the facts of reality?”

....

Yes.

There is a subtle point that needs to be clarified, pertaining to the "possible". If some proposition does describe a fact -- it is actually true -- then it is not possible that it is false, so it is not possible to demonstrate that it is false, and you would not ever have any evidence that it is false. You could imagine a particular fact that would show that the proposition is false if it were discovered, but you would not be in possession of such knowledge.

A vastly simpler and more accurate way to ask the question is to ask if Objectivism is "testable".

[Grames]

Can objectivism be refuted by reality?

No.

[phibetakappa]

There is a subtle point that needs to be clarified, pertaining to the "possible". If some proposition does describe a fact -- it is actually true -- then it is not possible that it is false, so it is not possible to demonstrate that it is false, and you would not ever have any evidence that it is false. You could imagine a particular fact that would show that the proposition is false if it were discovered, but you would not be in possession of such knowledge.

A vastly simpler and more accurate way to ask the question is to ask if Objectivism is "testable".

There's nothing more accurate or simpler about your statement. You would still need to define what "testable" means, in fact, term the testable in the way you have used it is a subtle metaphor.

The test-able is an object which has the capacity or possibility of being "tested" because of its nature, but what constitutes a test and what that test demonstrates is still an open question, until it is defined.

But, I understand your point, about the nature of a truth verse false statement.

But in complex cases, evidence is built up in a context, and it is very possible for there to be seemingly contradictory evidence against a given conclusion; and for the circumstance to be such so one could, with certainty conclude mistakenly a given proposition is true, when it eventually will be concluded false.

That is why it is necessary to implicitly or explicitly to state, "with in the full context of my knowledge at the present time, such and such is true."

Edited April 23, 2009 by phibetakappa

[DavidOdden]

There's nothing more accurate or simpler about your statement.

I think it is, since it does not rely on the egregiously wrong Popperian notion of refutation, and also doesn't clutter the discussion with ambiguous "possibilities".

You would still need to define what "testable" means, in fact, term the testable in the way you have used it is a subtle metaphor.

As is also the case with questions involving "possible" plus "refute". What constitutes a refutation is an open question, especially if only refutation counts, and demonstration has no epistemological value.

[crizon]

My thinking behind this was if it is part of objectivism to argue if the things it advocates actually "work".

IE is it a problem for Objevtivism if captitalism actually creates wealth (and more wealth than other systems) or if that doesn't matter since capitalism is the right choice no matter if it works or not.

In other words if capitalism would not work or if there was a better system for the creating of wealth, objectivism would still be true.

The same can be amplied to crime rates or any other concrete results. I hope i made my intention clear now.

[sanjavalen]

There are two senses of what you're saying. So you have to be very careful in answering this question if you do not want to risk being taken to say something you did not.

First, is it posisble that reality provides data that Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology is incorrect? The answer is "Not by any scientific means" - since the scientific method replies implicitly on Oist metaphysics and epistemology.

If the question relates to ethical/political conclusions, the answer is yes, but I have to qualify this very specifically. Objectivist ethics/politics are valid because they describe the best method for your long-term self interest to be protected. To attempt to claim that Objectivism isn't correct from some very narrow statistical analysis would not be correct at all.

For example, it could be argued that in a police state, crime is much lower than in a capitalist state, ergo, a police state is "superior" to a capitalist system. As a less extreme example, take the case of gun control. In many states that prohibit or very heavily regulate the ownership and use of firearms, crimes committed with firearms are much lower than in the USA (it is very often followed by a spike in the number of non-firearms related crimes, but this is not a 100% correlation.) Besides all these correlation/causation technical arguments, there is the simple fact that Capitalism's purpose is not simply to minimize crime, but to provide the way of life most conductive to allowing a human being to flourish as much as they are able. To take a small slice of data (crime rates or anything else) and declare that capitalism fails because of this is to miss the point entirely.

[Jake_Ellison]

My thinking behind this was if it is part of objectivism to argue if the things it advocates actually "work".

IE is it a problem for Objevtivism if captitalism actually creates wealth (and more wealth than other systems) or if that doesn't matter since capitalism is the right choice no matter if it works or not.

In other words if capitalism would not work or if there was a better system for the creating of wealth, objectivism would still be true.

The same can be amplied to crime rates or any other concrete results. I hope i made my intention clear now.

Ah, an is/ought question. Can the two conflict? The answer is no:

Human beings should be free, because their nature is such that they can only be productive, creative and happy if they are free. That's why Objectivism advocates for Capitalism, not because it "works" in other ways. In our opinion freedom is the most important thing for human beings, not whatever else you may consider "better" and "thing that works", because that is the only thing that allows the rational (the good) among us to be happy, and there is no other way to be happy, or, ultimately, even survive. In other words, there's no way to separate "it works" from "it is good". When the is and the ought conflict, you should review your ought.

If human nature were such that we could not be productive, creative and happy while free (to achieve all those we would need a central power or some other authority, like God, Karl Marx, Hitler, to direct our actions), then Capitalism would be wrong. For instance, Objectivism would not consider Capitalism the good for bees, or any other non-rational species. (not even for children, who need an authority to direct them)

If we were (like you were leaving the possibility open for) in favor of Capitalism even if it didn't work, then we would also advocate for children and animals (and possibly even trees) to have the same exact freedoms. It wouldn't work, but who cares, if we were hellbent on applying our little mantra out of any context.

[DavidOdden]

Just to reduce this to something remarkably concrete, Objectivism holds that man does not have any innate knowledge of how to survive, and that every man must discover, by using his rational faculty, how to survive. So if somehow it were proven to a certainty that man does in fact have an innate knowledge of how to build fire, how to trap a deer, which fruits are poisonous, that he must seek shelter from storms and so on, then that claim of Objectivism (about man's nature) would be wrong.

Objectivism does not in any way predict that by legalizing the sale of hallucinogens, the crime rate will go down. So if doing so causes an increase in the crime rate, we can ask why, but we can't conclude "Aha! Objectivism is wrong".

[Marc K.]

In a twisted way I guess you could blame Objectivism even for the truth of its ideas.

After all, if the greatest good for the greatest number is your aim, then Capitalism is the only way to go.

Indeed, Capitalism is the greatest socialist program there ever was. (He said with a wry smile, sarcasm and irony dripping from his teeth).

[01503]

...if the greatest good for the greatest number is your aim, then Capitalism is the only way to go.

Indeed, Capitalism is the greatest socialist program there ever was.

You don't mind if I use that as my new signature, do you?

Crediting you, of course.

Edited April 24, 2009 by NickS

[Marc K.]

You don't mind if I use that as my new signature, do you?

Crediting you, of course.

You may use it but you should be very very careful with it, it can be easily misunderstood.

The reason I used the word "twisted" is because some evil ideas are contained therein.

All socialist programs are evil. Nearly everyone who ever suggested the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number was a proper aim was probably ignorant, and everyone in history who ever tried to implement it was evil.

I don't think you can speak logically of the "good of society", the "good" is a term that can only apply to the individual.

We, on this board, know that the individual is sovereign and that freedom is what he requires in society and that the fortunate consequence of freedom for the individual is prosperity and happiness for all.

So I think it is a funny thing to say here and is probably a good conversation starter elsewhere, just don't let anyone misunderstand your motivation for saying it.

Have fun.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Marc K.

[crizon]

Just to reduce this to something remarkably concrete, Objectivism holds that man does not have any innate knowledge of how to survive, and that every man must discover, by using his rational faculty, how to survive. So if somehow it were proven to a certainty that man does in fact have an innate knowledge of how to build fire, how to trap a deer, which fruits are poisonous, that he must seek shelter from storms and so on, then that claim of Objectivism (about man's nature) would be wrong.

Objectivism does not in any way predict that by legalizing the sale of hallucinogens, the crime rate will go down. So if doing so causes an increase in the crime rate, we can ask why, but we can't conclude "Aha! Objectivism is wrong".

I think that answers my question. Thank you.