Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I certainly hope not. Because if that's true, there are a whole lot of people over at the ARI who are wasting their time.

The people at ARI are appealing to people who reason themselves into their ideas and offering them even more good ideas (ours!) to think about.

Trying to convert irrational people has much too low a rate of return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not what you're trying to say, then why don't you explain it? There's obviously at least two people who didn't understand it...

I think it's clear enough that anyone reading it should be able to understand. If there is some confusion with what I said, I would be willing to answer specific questions.

I will explain why I disagree with your attempt to paraphrase what I said:

What jedymaster was trying to say is that a scientist is no more qualified to make a statement about philosophy than a philosopher about science. There may be exceptions but, for the most part, a specialist must stick to his own field.

This seems to imply that philosophy and science are two completely separate fields--I stated that they were hierarchically related. Specifically, I said that philosophy is more fundamental than science in a hierarchical chain. As a result, it is perfectly reasonable for a philosopher to comment on a scientific statement if it contradicts a valid philosophical principle (or to verify that it is philosophically sound).

What you said, at least how I read it, makes it appear that philosophy and science are unrelated--perhaps even that only specialists should talk about them. It makes it sound as if the two fields do not need to be properly integrated (compartmentalization) and ignores the hierarchy relating them. I didn't make any of these assertions (or allusions to them) in my original post, so I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't agree with your paraphrase.

Please don't misunderstand me by taking my comments here to be hostile. I'm not accusing you of compartmentalization or intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. I am just trying to explain why I disagree with your paraphrase so my point doesn't get confused or distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


OK, that makes sense when you explain it. I wasn't accusing you of being hostile. It was just frustrating when you posted a simple, "I don't agree" without a qualifier.

Now that you explain it that way, I agree totally but I don't think your previous post completely communicated all of those ideas. I can see, though, where I wasn't completely clear, too. I concede to your explanation.

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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