Is Praxeology compatible with Objectivism?

[poohat]

Is validation a synonym for proof or derivation?

I think that logically, a validation of an argument shows that its truth is guaranteed by the truth of its premises, whereas a true proof would have to show that the premises are also true. I'm not sure how Id apply this to statemtents though, and it wouldnt really make much sense to talk about axions being validated with this usage of the term.

Saying anything will necessarily presuppose your axioms, and that is exactly what makes them valid: you can't deny them without presupposing them.

Then how is Rand's position different from Mises', since thats essentially what Mises claimed.

[RadCap]

One cannot prove Objectivism's primary axiom, though one can validate it. And by reference to that axiom and its validation, one can validate its other two axioms.

The reason one cannot prove Objectivism's axioms is that the concept 'proof' is derived FROM its axioms. Knowing this, one is able to demonstrate to others that when they demand such proof, they are accepting as true that which they seek to 'prove' is false. But that is not the validation of those axioms.

The validation of Objectivism's axioms, as I have stated previously, is ostensible. When someone asks you to validate the claim "Existence exists", the one and only thing you can do is POINT to it - ie make reference to the evidence of the senses - there - and there - and there, etc.

In other words, you say "There is."

This is the validation of objectivism's fundamental axiom. And it is also the validation of its other two, corrollary axioms. For when one says "There is" one is saying "There is something I am aware of".

There is = existence

Something = identity

I am aware of = consciousness

Because you cannot say "There is" without reference to something and without reference to a means of perceiving that something, the ostensible validation of existence is the validation of Objectivism's axioms as a whole.

[poohat]

The validation of Objectivism's axioms, as I have stated previously, is ostensible. When someone asks you to validate the claim "Existence exists", the one and only thing you can do is POINT to it - ie make reference to the evidence of the senses - there - and there - and there, etc.

But here you have a situation where the axioms are used to justify the evidence of the senses, and the evidence of the senses is used to validate the axioms. Its a circular argument.

In other words, you say "There is."."

And you'd be using the axioms while doing so. The word "is" presupposes the axiom of identity. You cant use anything based upon or derived from axioms in order to validate them.

edit: I'm not disputing the validty of the axioms themselves. I think that "we take them as self evident axioms because their denial involves their affirmation" is a perfectly sufficient justification, I just dont think you can go beyond that and talk about validating them against reality in the way you describe.

[RadCap]

poohat is incorrect again.

1 - In reference to my post and the selected quote, the senses are used as validation for the Existence axiom. The axiom is not used to validate the senses there.

2 - Words do not create reality. Just because I claim (or asssume, or assert etc) anything, does not make it so. Therefore, I must back up that statement. And I do so by pointing.

If anyone else has problems with this concept of validation, please let me know. Otherwise I will consider the matter closed.

[poohat]

1 - In reference to my post and the selected quote, the senses are used as validation for the Existence axiom.  The axiom is not used to validate the senses there.

Sorry, I meant within Objectivism, not your specific post; I should have specified that. I dont think theres any way to claim the senses are valid without invoking identity/existence/casuality on some level.

[danielshrugged]

I dont think theres any way to claim the senses are valid without invoking identity/existence/casuality on some level.

No, there isn't. But that itself only supports their validity.

[Richard_Halley]

I meant within Objectivism

What do you mean? Ayn Rands veiw is clear here:

Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception.

The Objectivist veiw is obviously that sensory perception is self-evident. If you mean something contrary to that view, don't call it Objectivism.

[MinorityOfOne]

Two issues here:

1. The axioms are known to be true because they're self-evident.

2. The axioms are known to be axioms (in part) because they underlie all other knowledge, and therefore any attempt to deny them is self-refuting.