Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lacking a knowledge of science, as an objectivist

Rate this topic


emorris1000

Recommended Posts

Is it unethical, as an objectivist, to lack a strong knowledge of science?

I was going to add the caveat "up to your capabilities", but then I realized that anyone who claims to be an objectivist must be pretty well read in philosophy, which means they have an analytical mind, which means they whould be able to learn quite a lot of science.

The only justifiable hampering could be a constraint of time, but....I dunno most people have more time than they give themselves credit for.

--------

The first reason I ask this is that I have always found it a bit disconcerting that Ayn Rand did not seem to have much actual knowledge of science. Maybe I am wrong here, but I never got the impression she actually knew much science.

Peikoff as well, for that matter. He has a background in philosophy, but I've not seen much to indicate a strong education in science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, regarding Rand/Peikoff: Philosophy is more fundamental than science - with a bad philosophy you will hit a dead-end in science, as you go searching for the existence of a contradiction. So I would argue that Rand and Peikoff have a better understanding of what is necessary for proper science than many scientists, who implicitly accepted the philosophy that was handed down to them by their predecessors. I can personally say that in my 120+ credit hours of physics and math courses, philosophy of science was only briefly presented, and in a way that left all questions unanswered (or worse, unanswerable).

Now, regarding what Objectivists must know: it is not necessary for a person to even know anything about "Objectivism" to be an Objectivist, if his actions, values, and reasoning are in line with Objectivism. A knowledge of science will certainly help one debate such things as global warming, evolution, etc, but it is not necessary to value debate.

So to answer your question: no.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, why would it be unethical? While it is sometimes strongly to ones advantage to know at least a little about some branches of "science" ( I will assume you mean the "physical" sciences such as math, physics, chemistry and so forth), it is sometimes not that important.

The most you could say is that it is not really moral to evade learning as much science as you need to achieve some value that might require a certain amount of knowledge about science in order to be achievable in a given context.

Also : Yes Ayn Rand had relatively little knowledge of these "sciences" and Peikoff seems to have a little more ( at least in relation to physics, he had to learn some in order to do his lectures on induction in physics ) but not a staggering amount as far as I am aware.

However , it does not matter that much and it should not surprise you. Rand was a philosopher, she did not really need to know a lot of science ,as philosophy was her interest and it did not require a lot of scientific knowledge ( not the sort you are alluding to anyway). Peikoff I think knows more, but that is only because his philosophic interests relate a little more directly to physics and the problems he wanted to solve were easier if he knew a certain amount about physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, regarding Rand/Peikoff: Philosophy is more fundamental than science - with a bad philosophy you will hit a dead-end in science, as you go searching for the existence of a contradiction.

I'll agree that philosophy is fundamental, most definitely. The way I've always seen the interchange between philosophy and science is that philosophy is the concrete foundation, science is the house built on it. A bad foundation will lead to a house that won't stand.

But the foundation on it's own is pointless, moreover without an understanding of the house that will be built upon it how well can you truly understand the needs of the foundation? Historically you will notice that the most profound of the philosophers of science: Aristotle, Euclid, Popper, Newton, Galileo, etc, are ALL scientists as well as philosophers.

Also, returning to the metaphor of the house and foundation, its important to understand that while the foundation determines the integrity of the house, the foundation produces NOTHING on its own. It is the house, the science, that produces. It is the philosophy that defines its integrity.

So I would argue that Rand and Peikoff have a better understanding of what is necessary for proper science than many scientists, who implicitly accepted the philosophy that was handed down to them by their predecessors.

I would argue they have less, seeing as they never took the time to learn any of it.

Consider Richard Feynman, one of the most prolific, important, and really just cool scientists of the 20th century. He produced some of the most important physics of the 20th century. He considered the philosophy of science to be a complete waste of time. I disagree with this, but his complete disregard for that philosophy didn't stop his ability to do what he did.

Now, in his specific case it wasn't an issue because he innately understood philosophy of science. He was a savant of sorts (he has probably the best quotes of any scientist I have ever read). In other cases you could very well have someone that was intelligent but didn't understand the philosophy. Marx, Freud and Adler are examples of this.

But in both cases, good or bad, they actually produced.

The idea of someone spending all of their time on the foundation and none on the house makes me think of the pigs from animal farms or any other intellectualocracy, where the contribution of some only has to be their thoughts, not any actual production. Which, ironically, is something I would think Rand would have hated.

I can personally say that in my 120+ credit hours of physics and math courses, philosophy of science was only briefly presented, and in a way that left all questions unanswered (or worse, unanswerable).

Then you had terrible teachers. My professors made very sure that we spent time on stuff like this, at least some.

Now, regarding what Objectivists must know: it is not necessary for a person to even know anything about "Objectivism" to be an Objectivist, if his actions, values, and reasoning are in line with Objectivism. A knowledge of science will certainly help one debate such things as global warming, evolution, etc, but it is not necessary to value debate.

I'm glad you mentioned those last topics. Please explain to me how ANYONE could argue about global warming or evolution without having an understanding of the science beneath. Without that science the arguments fall to appeals to authority where you quote an expert, or talking about "beliefs" and "values" in realms where they have absolutely no role.

Edit:

As an aside, consider the commentary Rand herself made on this in Atlas Shrugged by making all of her magic three students who understood the value of both science and philosophy, who understood that both were required to reach their own standards of value.

Edited by emorris1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it unethical, as an objectivist, to lack a strong knowledge of science?

I get what you are saying about a foundation; going all "ivory tower" and ignoring applications of philosophy is horrifically shallow. Knowledge about the world as it is is important. But why do the "hard" sciences have to be the only options for application of philosophy in your house metaphor? There is literature, which Rand, Nietzsche and many other philosophers have done. Or maybe you can be an amazing cook and use knowledge about philosophy to do something notable with that. A working understanding of science is often useful, but further study might not always mesh well with life goals. I'd be a great medical doctor if I worked at it, and there's plenty of science I love to learn about. Problem is, the time required for a strong enough understanding of science for a career in it does not mesh with what sort of interests I have.

One thing I should note about Rand is that while I do not know how much hard science she studied, she studied plenty of history *in order* to come up with her philosophical conclusions via induction.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the foundation on it's own is pointless

On its own, maybe, but it is necessary for the house. The house we have now, has been built on an unsure foundation.

moreover without an understanding of the house that will be built upon it how well can you truly understand the needs of the foundation?

You are yet again putting the cart before the horse, presuming that you already know *how* to understand properly, in order to understand the house - but that foreknowledge requires a philosophy. Philosophy is not just the foundation on which the house is built - it is also all the knowledge of construction that is necessary in order to build a house that serves the purpose of shelter.

Historically you will notice that the most profound of the philosophers of science: Aristotle, Euclid, Popper, Newton, Galileo, etc, are ALL scientists as well as philosophers.

This makes sense, given that they were dealing with the most perceptually-accessible concepts. As science advances to more and more abstract conceptualization, it becomes increasingly important to maintain that firm rooting in reality.

I would argue they have less, seeing as they never took the time to learn any of it.

Please re-read my statement and understand why it is not necessary to learn about successful examples of the application of the scientific method in order to know how to successfully apply the scientific method.

He considered the philosophy of science to be a complete waste of time.

I believe his was more a commentary on academic philosophy, which he derided along with most other "liberal" fields. His "disregard" for philosophy was in name only, for he certainly applied a philosophy rooted in the evidence of the senses whenever possible.

The idea of someone spending all of their time on the foundation and none on the house makes me think of the pigs from animal farms or any other intellectualocracy, where the contribution of some only has to be their thoughts, not any actual production.

As the house grows taller and taller, and science becomes more and more abstract, the soundness of the foundation becomes increasingly more important.

Then you had terrible teachers. My professors made very sure that we spent time on stuff like this, at least some.

Your statements regarding infinity in the Existence of God thread indicate that your professors may not have spent enough time on it. Feel free to bump the relevant thread if you do not find the answers you're looking for.

Please explain to me how ANYONE could argue about global warming or evolution without having an understanding of the science beneath.

Did I say they could? No. You asked about what is ethical. If one does not value argument and debate, one need not concerns oneself with the details necessary to debate such topics.

One can, however, readily interrogate an opponent, and discover the contradictions or fallacies that underpin their arguments, with very little knowledge of the details of those fields of science.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say they could? No. You asked about what is ethical. If one does not value argument and debate, one need not concerns oneself with the details necessary to debate such topics.

One can, however, readily interrogate an opponent, and discover the contradictions or fallacies that underpin their arguments, with very little knowledge of the details of those fields of science.

Ok, lets restrict my argument then.

There are two broad kinds of arguments that can be made by a philosopher. There is an introspective argument, where someone looks at the nature of their philosophy for the sake of the philosophy (like "how do you define property"). Then there is the extrospective argument, where you use your philosophy to look at real world issues.

My concern is with the latter. When you examine a real world issue, like environmentalism, there is a basic level of aptitude in the applied science being discussed that is required. Without an understanding of the applied science, there can be no hope of finding contradictions to refine a position. Your only hope is repeating what someone else said or dogmatically sticking to views that clearly contradict reality.

For instance, f I were apply an aesthetic philosophy to mixology that led me to the conclusion that, because cherries and chocalate go together so well, a mixture of Grenadine and Godiva Chocalate Liquer will obviously make an amazing drink, I could potentially make a huge ass out of myself if I didn't also know that grenadine will make milk curdle.

And this is true of so many things. If you want to apply your philosophy to a field you can't simply throw your hands up and say "well the previous philosophy in this field was bad, so i don't need to learn anything in it before I talk about it." That's what bothers me.

Look, I know enough about physics and dif eq, for instance, to know that I have no business going *anywhere* near advanced physics. I mean, I'll mess with molecular physics and some basic qm, but throw down some UV spectra of a Plasmon and I'll throw in the towel willingly.

But yet I see people constantly jump into PhD level topics without even a freshman level of understanding of the subject and argue that it was unnecessary to learn the advanced material, or even the basic material, because there was a fundamental flaw in the science which invalidated all the other stuff, so it wasn't even necessary to learn it. This is what, in the long run, leads to what are known as "crackpot" theories, like the dude explaining to me how he had reduced quantum mechanics and special relativity, but had never heard of the ultraviolet catastrophe and didn't understand that his simplification fell down the same hole.

Edit:

I guess what I am asking is, if the foundation is the sole issue, why even try and attempt applied sciences before we perfect the foundation?

Also ask yourself some time if its a sound philosophy of science that makes planes fly, or one thats "good enough" and a hell of a lot of applied science elbow grease.

Edited by emorris1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one can use philosophy in order to identify fundamental errors contained with a body of science. For instance, one can identify that certain interpretations of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are invalid , because they assert that electrons have no precise value for their momentum and are not in a precise location ( I am not talking about the ones that claim it is impossible to *know* either precisely, but the interpretations that claim that of these do not have precise "values"). You do not need *any* further knowledge of physics than the basic claims of these interpretations in order to reject them, on the grounds that they are clearly invalid as they implicitly assert that the Law of Identify does not fully apply to electrons ( etc).

If a scientific theory contradicts basic philosophical premises like this, ones that you know to be true ( either because they are axioms or because you can prove them to be true), then it is entirely *VALID* to use philosophy to attack that theory and to show it to be false. One may not need to know *anything* else but philosophy and enough about the theory in question to do this.

This is in *some* cases however, and this sort of approach clearly will not work in other cases. Sometimes you *do* need to understand a fair bit of the "hard" science involved in order to understand the arguments, let alone to prove that they are correct or incorrect. This is why Ayn Rand for instance avoided discussion on the theory of evolution, something she did not know much about and was not comfortable discussing. It is also why I imagine why other Oist scholars ( such as for the sake of an example : Alex Epstein to my knowledge ) do not try to prove that aspects of Relativity are perhaps problematic in places.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heisenberg thing is interesting, but it's another discussion on the tautologies of axioms and what a contradiction of an axiom implies.

But anyways, let me try again from the start because I will admit that my initial statement wasn't well caged.

Objectivism is, in part, a study and appreciation of reality. Intentionally ignoring reality is immoral.

Science, flawed as it may be, gives the most fruitful descriptions of reality known to man. Fruitful, in this sense, means that the descriptions of reality in science are predictive enough to be used to build something. Like a plane. Or whatever.

Because the desciptions of reality can be fruitfully used to manipulate reality, it is implied that they have some kind of accuracy. Now, what kind of accuracy it is is questionable, of course. Consider Newtonian physics. They *very* accurately describe the physical world within a certain set of scale. However at other scales (molecular) they do not describe reality.

It's true that science gives an approximation of reality, or a best fit with given data, and is not in fact an absolute description of reality.

BUT ITS SOMETHING.

That's indisputable. So how is it that someone who has a reverence for the knowledge of reality can say that it is not necessary to study science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that science gives an approximation of reality, or a best fit with given data, and is not in fact an absolute description of reality.

BUT ITS SOMETHING.

That's indisputable. So how is it that someone who has a reverence for the knowledge of reality can say that it is not necessary to study science?

Is it true that science only gives an approximation of reality? Are you suggesting that there are absolutely no absolute descriptions regarding reality? (Hint: "There are no absolutes." they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute.")

To exhort the study of science, which of the sciences?

A quick query yielded the following list (from Yahoo answers):

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena;

Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies.

Natural sciences

Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc.

Biology, the study of life.

Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment.

Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo.

Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including:

Geology

Hydrology

Meteorology

Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography

Soil science

Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.

The main social sciences include:

Anthropology

Communication

Cultural studies

Economics

Education

Geography

History

Linguistics

Political science

Psychology

Social policy

Sociology

I must note that philosophy is distinctly absent from this particular list. Do you consider philosophy a science?

As to the charge of ethical/unethical, to which science does its study belong? Is your charge substantiated according to the guidelines discovered therein?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no , no, a million times "no". Science is not there to give us an APPROXIMATION of reality. That is the Kantian influence in *modern* science talking. This influence asserts that it is impossible to know reality as it is and that we can only identify approximations of reality instead. Or to put it as it is often put in relation to physics : "We cannot know reality as it is, but we can identify mathematical rules which allow us to construct a system which describes a system of appearances, but not things as they necessarily are"

The point of science is not to "approximate" reality or to allow us to merely predict results. It is the systematic study of reality by applying the rules of logic and induction to the results of experiments / observation, so as to identify the nature of reality in relation to a given field of study. It is not about using dubious methods/thinking in order to sort of figure it out, or to make predictions that might work, even though we dont know why they work .

Also, one can revere knowledge without having to learn the details of some scientific disciplines in great depth. One need not know a lot of physics to know a lot about many aspects of philosophy. One need not understand evolution in depth in order to be a master philosopher. It is perfectly acceptable for one to know only as much about a "hard" science ( physics, chem , bio etc) as they need in order to answer the questions involved in a given field of inquiry, be that philosophy or any other.

Sure, many fields of study are related to some extent, but one is not morally obliged to learn much about all these sciences. The most you could say is that one should try to learn as much about them as it is required in order to answer questions which are important in relation to some value you might seek to obtain.

The video on the following page covers this in greater depth :

http://www.aynrand.o...=reg_ls_physics

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's indisputable. So how is it that someone who has a reverence for the knowledge of reality can say that it is not necessary to study science?

I'm kind of confused. Weren't you asking about *strong* understanding of science? I don't think anyone was talking about science in general, only referring to a strong understanding. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by strong understanding? What you are talking about is great reason to be supportive of science and desiring to understand science in some capacity, because science refers to here as understanding aspects of reality. In fact, Objectivist epistemology is in big part about how all knowledge is connected, so it would be terribly ignorant not pursue on occasion some kind of scientific knowledge. Still, it does not follow from there that having a strong understanding of a particular science is morally obligatory, though. You're making an assertion regarding a high level of understanding, as opposed to understanding at all.

What would help discussion here is this, emorris:

Define what you mean by "strong" understanding.

Define what you mean by science (which Dreamweaver just asked about)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no , no, a million times "no". Science is not there to give us an APPROXIMATION of reality. That is the Kantian influence in *modern* science talking

I'm not going to get into the Kant thing, so lets then say that science gives us an absolute understanding of reality. That's an even stronger argument for why the study of science is so important.

What would help discussion here is this, emorris:

Define what you mean by "strong" understanding.

Define what you mean by science (which Dreamweaver just asked about)

Yeah this is a good point. Strong is very subjective, you're absolutely right. The second point is just as correct.

Maybe that's the question, what level of proficiency with science sets an ethical minimum? What breadth, and what depth?

[/quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a strong argument for why *science* is important, yes. It is an argument for why the scientific method / way of thinking is important in order to gain knowledge.

However it is not an argument for why in depth knowledge of *all* science is important to *everyone*. Nor is it a strong argument for why Ayn Rand , Peikoff and others necessarily need to know a great deal about the hard sciences in particular. Philosophy is the science those two need to know. The "hard " sciences? Not so much. However, it has already been shown to you why this is the case.

There is no "ethical minimum" which exists at the same level for everyone. The closest to this is the minimum knowledge of a given scientific field which one may need to know in order to think / act properly ( ie philosophy ) or to achieve some other goal ( such as building a bridge, in which case they need physics and engineering etc ). Which hard science they need to know and how much is entirely dependent on what they are trying to do and what succeeding at such requires.

Otherwise it is completely unimportant how much science they know and it is certainly completely outside the realm of morality / ethics. Which deals with how man is to live / achieve values.

Who decides this minimum amount anyway? And how? According to what *you* think is appropriate? What if that has little bearing on how everyone else lives / achieves *their* values?

The minimum amount *everyone* "needs" is enough to live and if t hey want to achieve values : Whatever scientific facts achieving them requires. At what level this is and what facts are included is largely very different for everybody and dependent on what they value to a huge extent.

Look: IT IS CONTEXTUAL. The context is what a given person needs in order to achieve what they want to achieve. Though some things need to be known by everyone that wishes to live / do anything useful. What is enough for me might be too little for someone else, or more than is rationally useful for some other person.

Are we to condemn cleaners for not knowing much physics , chem or bio? Am I to morally condemn painters for not knowing more than the most basic physics? Even though neither of them have any need to know much more than they do to succeed at life and happily achieve rational values?

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "house" that is mainly built upon the foundation of philosophy -- and Objectivism in specific -- is a life-well-lived. To that end, we can expect that most people will have a need for certain basic understandings of sciences, like nutrition and health, household chemistry, and the physics of making their car brake on time. Some people, primarily those who choose to follow a career path which depends on a more intensive study of one or more branches of science, will need to know more.

But it is not required for an Objectivist, as such, to be a master of all branches of science. An Objectivist could be, for instance, a plumber, and doubtless that would make many demands on certain areas of his scientific knowledge. But there are also several areas of science that he will not necessarily need, and the time he would otherwise have spent gaining that knowledge might be better spent in a variety of ways that will more directly impact his individual affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's the question, what level of proficiency with science sets an ethical minimum? What breadth, and what depth?

The thing to keep in mind here is that for Objectivism, an ethical system is supposed to be helpful to the individual, a guide to living one's life to the fullest and best extent possible. There is no universal ethical minimum of science knowledge needed for this; requirements are context-dependent. The requirements for an understanding of biology and human anatomy are obviously much higher for a doctor than for a layman; it would be irresponsible for a doctor to practice without a solid and in-depth understanding of such subjects. However, even for a layman, would it be beneficial to one's life to attain a basic understanding of, say, how disease transmission works? Absolutely.

The bottom line would be, if you have reason to believe that you will benefit significantly from attaining some level of knowledge in a particular scientific area, even given the time and effort it takes to attain, then you should go for it. However, there's no reason to think that everyone should attain a solid understanding of (for example) the scientific theories of evolution or global climate change, or else they're immoral. It depends on the relationship between that knowledge and one's individual life. Plenty of people have little to no reason to spend the time it takes to learn any particular scientific theory.

Heh, now that I look, basically what DonAthos said :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing to keep in mind here is that for Objectivism, an ethical system is supposed to be helpful to the individual, a guide to living one's life to the fullest and best extent possible. There is no universal ethical minimum of science knowledge needed for this; requirements are context-dependent. The requirements for an understanding of biology and human anatomy are obviously much higher for a doctor than for a layman; it would be irresponsible for a doctor to practice without a solid and in-depth understanding of such subjects. However, even for a layman, would it be beneficial to one's life to attain a basic understanding of, say, how disease transmission works? Absolutely.

The bottom line would be, if you have reason to believe that you will benefit significantly from attaining some level of knowledge in a particular scientific area, even given the time and effort it takes to attain, then you should go for it. However, there's no reason to think that everyone should attain a solid understanding of (for example) the scientific theories of evolution or global climate change, or else they're immoral. It depends on the relationship between that knowledge and one's individual life. Plenty of people have little to no reason to spend the time it takes to learn any particular scientific theory.

Heh, now that I look, basically what DonAthos said :)

Yeah, I mean even after I wrote "ethical minimum" I realised that there was something deeply wrong with that statement. Yeah I get your point though.

I still have a serious problem with the fact that Rand never seemed to have much of an education in science, but.....hrmmm that's a specific, in context issue.

Edited by emorris1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dante : And basically what I also said :P

emorris1000 : Well, I cannot track down any good reason to have that problem at this point. I mean, maybe there might have been some benefit for her knowing a little more. However that is sheer speculation and I guess we will never really know now. Even if it was true, I would not go as far as saying she knew *too little*, only that more might *possibly* have been better.

For what it is worth : I recall hearing that at some point relatively close to her death she was starting to learn more about algebra and neuroscience ( why I am not exactly sure on, but I would wager it had some relation to some philosophical problems she was wrestling with). I have no idea how far she got into looking into either though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to have to take a different position here.

I am going to try something other than simply explaining, or arguing my position, for a change. I am in the mood for story telling:

Son: Grandma said she saw a demon in my room.

Father: Don't be afraid, son. Demons do not exist.

Son: But Grandma swears she saw one and Grandma never lies.

Father: This is true. I have never known your Grandma to tell a lie.

Son: So, then there must be a demon in my room because she said she saw one and she never lies.

Father: I have no doubt your grandma was telling the truth. She did indeed see a demon in your room, but, still, demons do not exist.

Son: But if grandma does not lie and grandma saw a demon, then demons must exist.

Father: It is true that your grandma never lies and it is true that she saw a demon, but it is not true that demons exist.I promise you, if we investigate your room, we will not find a demon anywhere.

Son: But Grandma says only she can see the demon.

Father: Yes, she is right. Only she can see the demon. Your grandma has a mental illness that causes her to see things around her that aren't really there. These things only exist in her imagination. These things are very real to her, but only to her. Do you understand?

Son: I think so. Some one should tell that she can stop hiding because there is no such thing as demons.

Father: I will try, but I doubt she will listen to me.

Son: Why?

Father: Because when she is off her medication, like she is now, she will not believe me.

Son: Why? Doesn't Grandma trust you? You wouldn't lie about something like that.

Father: Yes. Your grandma trusts me very much. She knows I would never lie to her about something like that.

Son: Then, why wouldn't she believe you?

Father: Because she knows she is the only one who can see the demon.

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is a different approach. Maybe it is just me and maybe it is the late hour at which I am trying to read this : But what exactly is the intended moral of that interesting little story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have a serious problem with the fact that Rand never seemed to have much of an education in science

That is simply because you still see science as more important to life than philosophy, disregarding the fact that science - as well as all other endeavors - *depends on* philosophy for its proper function and continued progress.

My first statement in this thread stands: Rand and Peikoff have a better understanding of what is necessary for proper science than many scientists (and indeed entire scientific fields), who implicitly accepted the philosophy that was handed down to them by their predecessors.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is simply because you still see science as more important to life than philosophy, disregarding the fact that science - as well as all other endeavors - *depends on* philosophy for its proper function and continued progress.

I don't put science above philosophy, I find them of equal importance. Or thereabouts. You need both. If you are going to go through a bunch of effort to learn a philosophy that reveres reality, you should probably spend some time studying reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Love of knowledge" (philosophy) doesn't dictate that all knowledge must be known by one person.

Objectivism holds that all knowledge is 'knowable'.

If not by one person, then by an aggregate of people.

If not yet, then in the distant future.

Each of us learns what we need (and 'need' includes pleasure in simply knowing) but it's the very fact that we cannot be omniscient that makes philosophy of crucial importance:

It over-rides all sciences, as some have said.

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...