Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
LoBagola

Collapsing modern knowledge under Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

We are an advanced society. Especially in the hard sciences: computer science, physics, maths, chemistry, biology etc. But how much of our knowledge would collapse in on itself if people were to begin holding an Objectivist philosophy?

 

How many sciences are built on false premises?

How many specialized areas of study are complete wastes?

 

I think that there are huge amounts of very intelligent people working in fields which may just be irrelevant for living. 

 

I can think of a few - but I think there are so many more:

Econometrics: statistics applied to economics in order to direct public policy 

Economics (some schools) : If the whole structure is built on the premise that man is always rational then it just collapses in on itself

Psychology... how much of psychology is built on false premises?

 

 

 

What about careers? 

How many lawyers specialize in the many different areas of government regulation? What about taxation specialists? In finance there are enormous amounts of jobs resulting purely from the existence of government intervention in the economy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Objectivist ideas rendered some human endeavor obsolete (which it doubtlessly would), that wouldn't be much different than what has happened all throughout human history, most dramatically today in the technology industries -- new knowledge leaves past ignorance behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accountants and Lawyers are two careers that will drop in demand with the absence of government regulations.

 

With less regulation, litigation (breach of contract, etc.) would go up dramatically (every issue would be private and unique etc.) so Lawyers would be very busy.  Business lawyers and corporate lawyers also would be more busy since all the regulations which took away many issues from the negotiating table (literally took it out of the hands of the private parties) would now return to the parties to decide.

 

Accountants are always needed... even more so in an unregulated economy.  Recall, less babying from the state generally means more responsibility (which is of course proper) on individuals, voluntary groups of individuals, corporations, etc. to know and understand what financial instruments are being offered etc.

 

 

Government adds unwanted and inefficient regulation but that does not mean the world of private industry will necessarily become less complex in absence of those regulations.  Unfettered the level of complexity in the private sphere will only be limited by what the market is willing to bear.. (i.e. willing to comprehend for what price).  

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With less regulation, litigation (breach of contract, etc.) would go up dramatically (every issue would be private and unique etc.) so Lawyers would be very busy.  Business lawyers and corporate lawyers also would be more busy since all the regulations which took away many issues from the negotiating table (literally took it out of the hands of the private parties) would now return to the parties to decide.

 

Accountants are always needed... even more so in an unregulated economy.  Recall, less babying from the state generally means more responsibility (which is of course proper) on individuals, voluntary groups of individuals, corporations, etc. to know and understand what financial instruments are being offered etc.

 

 

Government adds unwanted and inefficient regulation but that does not mean the world of private industry will necessarily become less complex in absence of those regulations.  Unfettered the level of complexity in the private sphere will only be limited by what the market is willing to bear.. (i.e. willing to comprehend for what price).  

 

Good point.

 

I was thinking of regulations like Sarbanes Oxley, which increased the demand for accounting enormously in the past decade or so, and taking away the complexity of the tax system. But, I do agree there will still be much needed in the accounting area. For example, there is demand by investors for a standard for the financial reporting of corporations listed on stock exchanges. So, there will be groups like FASB and IFRS even without government force, which exchanges adopt as a standard required for participation. So there will be market regulations that increase the demand for accounting as well.

Edited by thenelli01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are an advanced society. Especially in the hard sciences: computer science, physics, maths, chemistry, biology etc. But how much of our knowledge would collapse in on itself if people were to begin holding an Objectivist philosophy?

 

How many sciences are built on false premises?

How many specialized areas of study are complete wastes?

 

I think that there are huge amounts of very intelligent people working in fields which may just be irrelevant for living. 

 

I can think of a few - but I think there are so many more:

Econometrics: statistics applied to economics in order to direct public policy 

Economics (some schools) : If the whole structure is built on the premise that man is always rational then it just collapses in on itself

Psychology... how much of psychology is built on false premises?

 

 

 

What about careers? 

How many lawyers specialize in the many different areas of government regulation? What about taxation specialists? In finance there are enormous amounts of jobs resulting purely from the existence of government intervention in the economy.

 

 

Ideas would be reviewed properly and in an objective manner, but not necessarily invalidated unless they are simply not true.  While some ideas are justified based on false premises, or held up as excuses to destroy a premise, they may not have been reached in such a manner.  Science still defaults at some times to real methods by sheer necessity. 

 

The problem with today's word is the Post-Modernist approach which combines rationalized generalizations with empiric dogmatism, sometimes amazingly at the same time.  In the middle of such rampant non-thinking it’s east to come to the conclusion that whatever comes out of the machine is wrong.  But it is important to remember that people’s survival instinct has to kick in at some point.  If they want to do something they will need to think it through properly, even if it is floating out of context.  Many sciences get by this way, for example some physicists claimed contradiction exist while we put a man on the moon and stayed completely oblivious that the later invalidated the former. 

 

While something like Psychology needs a good overhaul and rediscovered, some fields like economics simply need to have the bad ideas ejected and the healthy ideas unified.   Something that has already been very well in some quarters actually. 

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...