MajorTom

I find this thread particularly interesting as I am currently enrolled in a philosophy of science class called "Reason and Revolution" (a seductive title for sure). We just finished Kuhn's Copernican Revolution and are now delving into Structure. The professor, however, has lectured us so far on Kuhn's philosophy, and even with this tiny amount of knowledge I have, I can point out some things I believe some posters on this thread are confused about . First of all, Kuhn's "paradigm" is not a model. It works a bit more like a world-view. It is a mix of philosophical, religious, and scientific beliefs that Kuhn believes have a immense role in how scientific revolutions come about. He came to this conclusion in his study of history of science. An example of a paradigm is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory for the universe. This theory explained that pre-Galilean data of the movement of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. The theory wasn't perfect: it required an incredibly complex system of epicycles, equants, and eccentricities to make work. However, it fit with the Christian and Aristotelian views of the earth being at the center of the universe, it fit with Aristotelean physics, and it was easier to think that earth was stationary than moving because we on earth perceive no movement. Ptolemy's astronomy was overthrown by Copernicus's heliocentric theory, and as a result, people had to completely change their world-view of astronomy. For example, suddenly there were contradictions with the bible (bad news in the 16th century), and the Philosophers previously unchallenged physics suddenly were wrong. Additionally, Copernicus's theory did not even explain that data with any more accuracy than Ptolemy's, and it was just as complex. Without the popularization of astronomy done by Galileo and the perfection of the Copernican system done by Kepler, Ptolemy's paradigm might have lived longer. One shouldn't label Kuhn a falsificationist. Kuhn rejected falsification because he believed that scientists became attached to their theories, and therefore would not want to point out their fundamental flaws. This led to a major split in the late 20th century between Popperians and Kuhnians. They are two different animals. I don't buy verification, falsification, or Kuhnianism, but I would prefer it if we all had a better understanding of what these philosophies are about before we continue discussion.

I'm a sophomore at Virginia Tech majoring in Mechanical Engineering, however I just transferred here from a liberal arts school, so I'm more like a freshman. The reason I'm a studying ME (and the reason I'm at Tech) is because I absolutely love cars. I'm the son of an auto mechanic and I grow up in the passenger (and sometimes, illegally, in the drivers seat) of a BMW. I have a profound respect and passion for these machines, and I want to work for a car company until I have enough capital to start my own.

Landon, I've only been at this school for three weeks, so I don't know many people on campus yet. In addition, I am not a part of this group, I simply visited their booth.

Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The group is promoting change in legislation and school policies that would allow students at public universities enjoy their second amendment right, by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon on school (public) property. Here at Virginia Tech, the idea is even more thought provoking just over two years after the April 16 massacre. What if just one person West Ambler Johnston or Norris Hall had something to fight back with? Isn't that one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment? From a legal standpoint, the idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land! I would be very interested to hear some other thoughts, as well. Concealed Campus URL: http://concealedcampus.org/

Death Star tractor beam beats the Falcon

Thanks for your clarification. Having read more on metaphysics, I think I understand more about existance.

I understand now that existence cannot be proven (hence the reason Ayn Rand considered the Primacy of Existence to be an axiom). I do thank you for providing a clearer explanation of that. As for the Matrix scenario (for those of you not familiar with the movie, the idea is that human beings are forced to exist in vats of gel while illusions of life as they know it are fed into their minds (this set of illusions is called the Matrix)), I suppose that for the humans stuck in the vats, all they know is the Matrix, therefore it is for them existence. Because Objectivism is a "Philosophy for Living on Earth," I suppose that for the slaves of the Matrix, it would be a "Philosophy for Living in the Matrix." It is all they ever know, therefore it is to them, existence. Notice that the Matrix is not "an illusion so complete as to be identical reality in every way," but rather it is truly an illusion. It creates an alternate reality. For those trapped in it, it is existence. My point is that existance must exist, but the assumption actually made by Rand is that "this is existance," no?

I find this topic to be of particular interest because I just started P:WNI, and I was trying to explain objectivist metaphysics and epistomology to my girlfriend (who is also studying Objectivism, but was playing Devil's advocate). It went something like this: I: Objectivist metaphysics dictate that existance exists, and Objectivist epistomology dictates that things are what they are, so reason can be used to obtain knowledge. These are axioms. She: How do you know that existance exists? I: One has to exist in order ask or answer that question. She: Really? How do you know that? What if what you think is existence is all in your head? I: Well, I guess I don't know. I suppose Rand gave existence the benefit of the doubt. After all, there isn't exactly evidence to the contrary. Come to think of it... In regards to her last point, I suppose even if all reality were in my head (kind of like a Matrix scenerio) I would still have to treat that "existence" as being existent. Therefore, one has to believe that existence exists. The problem I have is that existence seems like a really big assumption, which the rest of Objectivism was founded upon. Is it, or is there some fundemental proof of existence outside of my body that I have missed in study of Objectivism? [Edit: Sp]

Ok, that actually makes alot of sense. Thanks for the help everyone.

So in the end... This would be in my self-interest because I would be achieving a value by respecting property rights. One more question. What if it were a twenty-dollar bill, as opposed to a wallet?

So if I'm understanding you correctly, by not picking it up (which would probably be fine in a perfectly rational society) or by turning it in to a police station, I would be respecting the concept of property rights, which I hold to be important because of my values. Just as I shouldn't take a "misplaced" car parked somewhere unlocked with the keys in it, I shouldn't take a misplaced wallet. Whether or not it was the owner's choice to put it in a particular location doesn't matter?

Thank you for the quick and thorough responses. I don't quite understand how taking time to go to the police station so some careless person can get his wallet back rather than doing things that benefit your own life is not sacrifice. Is your argument that you would be achieving a value in returning the wallet? If so, what value?

Let me start by introducing myself. My name is Justin Robey; I am a freshman at UNC-Chapel Hill, and I have been a member of OO.net since early fall of last year. I find the amount and content of the discourse here great, and I am always interested in thoughts Objectivists have on many topics. By having conversations with real people whilst learning more about Oism through literature, I've found that my understanding of the philosophy has grown quite a bit. That said, I'm still a neophyte. In fact, I haven't even made that great step into the scary world of philosophic non-fiction yet, but I believe I will have to ween myself off of Rand's captivating fiction this summer. I've spent plenty of time reading topics and replying to a few, and some of you I have even talked with in the Chatroom. I've been quite timid about talking about a few things, waiting until I understood Oism a bit better before I asked a stupid question. That said, I look forward to meeting even more of the interesting people here. Here goes... One of my favorite ethics-testing situations is the case of the wallet. One is walking down a sidewalk when suddenly he finds a wallet on the ground. The wallet has X amount of money in it. What does the person do? Common choices are: keep the wallet, turn it into a police station, donate the money to charity, leave it there, etc... What I am interested in is how an Oist would handle the situation. My hypothesis is that if there were no ID in it at all, he would keep it, but if there were ID in it he would leave it, as it is someone else's property. The reason I wasn't satisfied with that is that my logic falls apart when I go through the various conditions. Why does having an ID in the wallet change his ethical decision? Whose property is it when it hits the ground? What if it fell on government property? What if it was in the wilderness? Perhaps this question is an intrinsicist oversimplification of a complicated situation. I don't know. That's why I've come here. What would/should an Oist do if he were to come across a wallet on the ground?

Absolutely. This is a very exciting time for Objectivism, with Atlas Shrugged currently #2 in the nation in Amazon sales and mass media beginning to recognize and cite some of Ayn Rand's ideas. However, I call the emotion I feel from this a sort of cautious elation. It seems that just about everyone who appears on TV talking about Atlas Shrugged (with the natural exception of Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, etc. on Fox every now and again) really doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. This is even worse than the libertarian view of "I like what she said about politics, let's just use that" because these people don't even understand Objectivist politics! What they hear is that punishing success with taxes is a bad thing, and that John Galt was someone who made a stand against that. They have no idea that Objectivism denounces all taxation! The part that really bothers me comes from when I see WHO is doing their research. Every time I some Fox News pundit interviewing someone about "Going Galt" it gets no deeper than taxation. However, there is another thread all about Stephan Colbert's mention of Ayn Rand. I've seen all three of his allusioins to her, and the scary part is, he projects an understanding of the philosophy, which he then uses to attack Rand! The combination of stupid friends and enemies with initiative (I'm not going to call them smart) is not an especially wonderful one. I do, however, agree with the notion that the very fact Objectivism or at least Atlas Shrugged is getting attention is a good thing. I think what we, as Objectivists or at least as students of Objectivism, should do is utilize this momentum. At the very least, it has gotten people curious about Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

Jumbo Shrimp Clean Coal Partial Fractions

Not that "SparkNotes" is a reliable source of literary analysis, but I did notice in their analysis of The Fountainhead that they hypothesized the derivation of Howard Roark from "Hard Rock". This would make sense due to the fact that Howard is probably one of Rand's most morally unyielding characters she has ever created. His moral concreteness is paralelled by his ability and enjoyment of the simple tasks of breaking and shaping rocks that he completed while working at the quarry. He was a man harder than granite when it came to what other people thought of him.