curi

There is no such Popper argument. You are misrepresenting Popper's position. Popper's position is that there is no absolutely certain knowledge. All knowledge is fallible. No exceptions. Your statement of Popper's position on induction is also incorrect. It's not something a Popperian would recognize as his view or endorse.

According to his methodology, one devises a hypothesis and if it is supported by the evidence No, Popperian epistemology rejects the possibility of support. the purpose of Popper's methodology is to counter the problem of induction as stated by David Hume No, the purpose is to understand epistemology, reality, etc... Dealing with induction was one of Popper's accomplishments, towards that goal. Popper attempts to avoid the trap by arguing that as a theory matures and handles more and more cases and numerous attempts at refutation, it is more likely to be correct or nearly correct. No, it does not make it more likely. Popperian epistemology, like Objectivist epistemology, is not probabilistic. What does it make it? A better idea. Each time we correct some error we improve it. If we know of no errors, then it's the best knowledge we have, and we should use it for now (pending new ideas, new criticisms, etc) This needs no special justification. What else would we use? When Rand says that "your mind is fallible," I don't think she is referring to fallibilism. She is simply referring to the possibility of making a logical error --- an error which can ultimately be corrected. What do you think fallibilism means? Fallibilism means error is possible. Rand is agreeing with it. (BTW she says similar things elsewhere.) insist that certainty is possible Rand only insists that "contextual" certainty is possible. Contextual certainty is fallible. It accepts the possibility of improving our ideas later, or even rejecting them and replacing them with different ideas. She sees that as the root cause of the rejection of objective morality. FYI, Popper does not reject objective morality. How can one say what is right and wrong with any sort of certainty if one cannot say what exists or does not exist or what the laws of nature are with any sort of certainty? Because, instead of certainty, what we can have is (fallible) knowledge. This lets us speak of reality. It's not something to arbitrarily ignore. My view is that we clearly possess knowledge, though I'm not sure I can say exactly how, but that fact is sufficient to safely ignore the issue when considering ethics. The problem here is a package deal. Don't package together knowledge and "certainty" (infallibility). That is a mistake that basically every philosopher since Aristotle has made, and which Popper corrects.

Darrel, If I understand you correctly, you are assuming that knowledge has to be infallible in order to qualify as objective knowledge. Popper accepted human ideas are fallible -- but explained that there is nothing wrong with that. Fallibilism is not skepticism. None of this is "clearly" in opposition to Objectivism. Atlas Shrugged says you don't need infallibility or omniscience to have objective knowledge: "Do not say that you're afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automaton, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory.

Ayn Rand has the best moral philosophy ever invented. Karl Popper has the most important breakthrough in epistemology. Most Objectivists seem to think that Popper and Rand are incompatible, and Popper is an enemy of reason. They have not understood him. These lists are intended to help explain my motivation for integrating Rand and Popper, and also to help highlight many similarities they already have. Points Popperian epistemology and Objectivist epistemology have in common. In Popperian epistemology I include additions and improvements by David Deutsch and myself: - opposition to subjectivism and relativism - fallibilism - says that objective knowledge is attainable (in practice by fallible humans) - realism: says reality is objective - connected to reality: we have to observe reality, keep our ideas connected to reality - asserts there is objective truth - attention to context ("problem situation" or sometimes "problem" is the common Popperian term meaning context. E.g. a Popperian will ask "What is the problem this is addressing?" and be asking about context.) - pro-science - opposition to positivism - opposition to the language analysis school of philosophy - say that most professional philosophers are rather crap - opposition to both skeptical and authoritarian schools of epistemology - keeps our concepts "open-end[ed]" (ITOE). That means: possible to improve in the future as we learn more. - says that there are objective moral truths - does not seek a "frozen, arrested state of knowledge" (ITOE) - written clearly and understandably, unlike much philosophy - says epistemology is useful and valuable to real people; it matters to life; it's practical - you can't force an idea on someone. they can choose to accept it or not - you can't implant an idea in someone. you can't pour it in, stick it in with surgery, make them absorb it, etc. they get to think, interpret, choose. - free will - people are not born with some unchangeable nature and innate ideas. we can be self-made men. we can learn, change, improve, progress - emphasis on active use of one's mind, active learning - no inherent conflicts due to objective truth - understanding of unconscious and inexplicit ideas - if two ideas contradict, at least one is false - integration of epistemology with morality, politics, and more - rejection of authority - full rejection of idealism, solipsism - strong emphasis on clarity - rejection of limits on human minds - reject probabilistic approaches to epistemology - looks at man as rational and capable - value of critical thinking including self-criticism Strengths of Objectivist epistemology: - stolen concept - package deal - check your premises - ideas about integrating all one's knowledge and removing all contradictions - measurement omission and concept formation ideas both worthwhile, though flawed - good criticisms of many opponents of reason - good understanding of essentials vs non-essentials, e.g. for definitions - idea about automating some thinking - good explanation of what objectivity is - Judge, and be prepared to be judged Strengths of Popperian epistemology: - evolution creates knowledge - conjectures and refutations method - piecemeal, incremental method. value of every little improvement - identification of, and solution to, justificationism - addresses induction - conjectural, fallible, objective knowledge - idea that we progress from misconception to better misconception - myth of the framework - value of culture clash - emphasis on bold highly-criticizable claims, sticking your neck out to learn more - no shame in mistakes - value of criticism. criticism is a gift - understanding of rationality as being about error correction - unimportance of starting points. you can start anywhere, improve from there - criticism of definitions - criticism of foundations, bases - criticism of essentialism - criticism of manifest truth (and self-evidence, obviousness, etc) - static and dynamic memes - structural epistemology - coercion and common preferences - understanding of conflict and symmetry - applications to parenting, education, relationships - understanding of tradition - explanation of value of external criticism (if everyone has some blind spots, but some people have different blind spots then each other, then it's productive to share criticism with each other. a little like comparative advantage) - emphasis on critical method, criticism (ideas stand unless refuted) - let our ideas die in our stead Some of you are now wondering about details. I know. But it's so much! Let's do it like this: if you are interested in one of the topics, ask about it and I can elaborate. If you would preference a reference to existing material on the topic, that's fine too.

I agree with you that whether you've had a kid is a bad definition of motherhood. He's missed the point of what motherhood means. When he brought it up, I actually expected him to say motherhood was not quantifiable, so measurement omission won't work with it. But then he defined it so it's easily measurable, leaving out any spiritual or psychological aspects, and then he said you can't measure it. So I criticized that lol. He wasn't trying to say anything about Ayn Rand's view of motherhood. He was just giving his own materialist view of it and using it, as a random example, to make a bad criticism of measurement omission. I agree with you that Objectivism doesn't say a lot about parenting. I like what it does say. I think there's a few good comments here and there. Have you heard of Taking Children Seriously? It is a rational parenting philosophy which I think is the best. http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ Its most distinctive feature is the idea that it is both possible and desirable to bring up children entirely without doing things to them against their will, or making them do things against their will, and that they are entitled to the same rights, respect and control over their lives as adults.

yet i'm banned from solo and they aren't answering my email inquiring about it. i logged in fine. i posted fine. i refreshed the page fine. a while later i refresh and find i'm logged out and banned ("blocked"). while logged out, other people's user info page can be viewed but not mine, it's gone. it wasn't some glitch when i went to post or change settings or anything like that. it happened when i wasn't doing anything on the website but checking for a reply. i really think i'm banned. judging by their credo which i quoted above, i don't think they would like me so much, so i'm not super shocked. ARCHN on the other hand has a rational open-minded self-image which they are protecting by lying about their openness and interest towards discussion. to protect their self-image (primarily in their own minds), they have to end discussions by methods other than banning. shrug. btw, i fear they like the "rotten bastard" quote because it could be read, out of context, to imply that they have no flaws other than their surface flaws. that is not my view. oh well.

http://www.solopassion.com/credo "It also seeks to transform the culture of Objectivism itself, from one of cultism, censorship, heresy-hunts, emotional repression and robotic "Randroidism" to one where authentic individuality may blossom." "SOLO is for those who—to invoke George Walsh's famous remark when he helped David Kelley launch the Institute for Objectivist Studies—consider themselves "homeless Objectivists" still. It’s for those who, after 15 years of IOS/TOC, want an alternative to repressive religiosity within Objectivism other than the timid, tepid somnambulist ecumenism that pervades TOC (now renamed The Atlas Society). It's here for any Objectivist, aligned or non-aligned, who agrees with this Credo. And for any Objectivist who doesn't!" I am skeptical. Actually, it looks like solopassion just banned me for posting my review link there. No joke. And no notification sent to me or reason given.

If you know some good Objectivist discussion forums/lists/etc that are active and pure, I'll be happy for the reference. I haven't found much and figured I'd give a variety of places a chance and see if they had anything interesting to say. Actually I think the lack of quality online discussion is a flaw with the current Objectivist community. Anyway, if anyone here is interested in discussing some of my points -- whether they are an Objectivist or not -- I'd give it a try.

FYI i updated the original post with an additional point about Socrates. (and i'll probably make some minor edits in the future too, e.g. if someone tells me a typo)

fine with me. i think it's more readable on my blog but people can decide for themselves.

http://www.curi.us/1578-critical-review-of-ayn-rand-contra-human-nature (Would be hell to copy the article here with all the formatting correct. Please read at link and feel free to and quote/reply here.) Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature@font-face{font-family:"Times New Roman";}@font-face{font-family:"宋体";}@font-face{font-family:"SimSun";}@font-face{font-family:"Symbol";}@font-face{font-family:"Arial";}@font-face{font-family:"SimHei";}@font-face{font-family:"Courier New";}@font-face{font-family:"Wingdings";}@font-face{font-family:"Verdana";}p.p0{margin:0pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:0pt;text-align:left;font-size:12.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }h1{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-style:normal; font-size:16.0000pt; font-family:'Arial'; }h2{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-size:14.0000pt; font-family:'Arial'; }h3{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-size:13.0000pt; font-family:'Arial'; }h4{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-size:14.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }h5{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-size:13.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }h6{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:bold; font-size:11.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }p.p7{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-weight:normal; font-size:12.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }p.p8{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-style:italic; font-size:12.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }p.p9{margin-bottom:3.0000pt;margin-top:12.0000pt;page-break-after:void;text-align:left;font-size:11.0000pt; font-family:'Arial'; }span.10{font-size:10.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }p.p15{margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:0pt;text-align:left;font-size:9.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }p.p16{margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:0pt;text-align:left;font-size:9.0000pt; font-family:'Times New Roman'; }@page{mso-page-border-surround-header:no; mso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}@page Section0{margin-top:72.0000pt;margin-bottom:72.0000pt;margin-left:89.8500pt;margin-right:89.8500pt;size:612.3500pt 790.9500pt;layout-grid:14.3500pt;}div.Section0{page:Section0;}Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature curi.us/1578-critical-review-of-ayn-rand-contra-human-nature I read the book Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature (ARCHN) by Greg Nyquist (GN). ARCHN is also a blog. Previously I commented on the book's introduction. You can read that here. Overall, it is a bad book. Some parts are mixed. Some are even pretty decent. But the book has to be evaluated negatively. It has too much hostility, too many insults. It doesn't just have innocent errors. It has errors due to malice and evasion. It is not objective. GN and his ARCHN blog friends pretend to be fairly objective, and interested in discussion. They claim they respect Rand and consider her worth studying and criticizing. They say they criticize because she's good enough to pay attention to. They are lying. They attack Rand because they find her ideas offensive. They don't like her or Objectivism. Let me relate briefly my experience talking with them on their blog. They say they are interested in discussing with Objectivists. But when you advocate an Objectivist position they act surprised, confused and offended. They start saying that "of course" Objectivism is false, and you can't actually or reasonably believe what you're saying. What they want is to talk to non-Objectivists pretending to be Objectivists (like Kelleyites). Those false friends of Objectivism would agree with them that Objectivism is wrong and validate them. Rather than being interested in learning what Objectivist positions actually are (e.g. that David Kelley is not an Objectivist), their interest is in denying that the real Objectivism exists at all. I am making strong claims. I know it. I'm serious; I mean it. Details follow. ARCHN's Reasoning ARCHN's reasoning for its non-insult criticisms of Objectivism is repetitive. There are several repeated approaches: · Objectivism contradicts ARCHN's premises · "Evidence" or "facts" contradict Objectivism · Specious scientific authority contradicts Objectivism on non-scientific issues (scientism) · Objectivism fails to provide "evidence" or "facts" for its positions (often historical evidence) · ARCHN quotes a supposed authority who contradicts Objectivism (this is usually ARCHN's idea of providing evidence for its side) · ARCHN asserts that only Objectivists are dumb enough to think something, no one else · ARCHN asserts that an Objectivist position is obviously false · GN does not understand some Objectivist position and treats the gap in his knowledge as a flaw in Objectivism · ARCHN is opposed to philosophy itself, which causes frequent disagreements ARCHN rarely even attempts to point out internal contradictions within Objectivism or make any arguments that would persuade any Objectivist. Rather, ARCHN starts with premises that Objectivism has refuted and then uses them to reach the conclusion that Objectivism is mistaken. ARCHN makes a big deal out of "evidence" which usually really means "authority". ARCHN is better at appealing to authority than providing arguments. Sometimes it does try to make arguments, but not often enough. Instead it's always demanding "evidence" rather than thinking through arguments. GN seems unaware of the Popperian (and Objectivist too) point that all evidence has to be interpreted by thought and our philosophy matters to how we do that (there's no escaping philosophy and ideas and thinking). One thing ARCHN doesn't do is improve on any Objectivist idea. It doesn't even try to. An honest critic would sometimes find what he regarded as a small problem and try to fix it. Sometimes he would come up with some solution he considered successful. Then he could explain the issue and how he thinks it can be resolved without any harm to Objectivism. But GN never does that. Why doesn't ARCHN do better? Maybe because it's dishonest and hostile. We'll take a look at that first and then return to some of the other issues. Hostility ARCHN has way too much hostility and insults. The only positive thing I can say about it is that at least GN doesn't try too hard to hide that he's a rotten bastard. Here is the last paragraph of the book, condensed: ... I would give Objectivism very low marks ... based on years of hard work and study. Those who believe I am being unfair to Rand can go out and do the hard work for themselves. Let them read the philosophers Rand so cavalierly denounces ... familiarize themselves with the best that has been said and thought in the disciplines of political science, sociology, and psychology. If they are intelligent enough to profit from their labors, they will see that, whatever errors I might have committed in regards to this detail or that, in the main, I am justified in my low assessment of Rand’s philosophical achievement. No one who is well educated in these matters and is endowed with the ability to think critically can ever regard Objectivism as anything other than a mistake. This is closed minded and infallibilist. It's an appeal to authority, the authority of being educated. No one who is educated could disagree with GN or like Objectivism. [Atlas Shrugged] is, in fact, neither great nor important. It is, to be entirely frank, a rather ridiculous and overblown philosophical fantasy populated by stock figures whose resemblance to anything human is merely coincidental. The book ... essentially juvenile—an exercise in unintelligent, excessively romanticized hero-worship. Such, in any case, would likely be the estimate of any great mind. No, GN does not value Objectivism. No he does not really think it's good enough to be worth studying and paying attention to. He just hates it and wants to harm it. Note, again, the appeal to authority and attempt at intimidation. Supposedly any "great mind" would likely agree with GN. Or put another way, if you don't agree with GN, he's saying you must not be a great mind. It would have been best for Rand if she had simply owned up to the fact that her ideal man was a mere phantom of her overly romantic sensibility and to seek to base her philosophy on something for less impalpable. But she was too proud, too self-willed, too implacable to do any such thing. She stuck to her guns to the bitter end, insisting with increasing vehemence that only she was right and that all the great geniuses of intellectual history who had arrived at very different conclusions regarding the nature of man were either complete ignoramuses or vicious, evil man-haters. Rand’s idolatry of her “ideal” man set her against nearly every important thinker and scholar, past and present, of Western Civilization. This is not a critic who hopes to be helpful with his criticism. It is attack and denunciation. And appeal to authority. Rand contradicted many "geniuses", therefore she must be wrong. If that's what you think, you do not respect Rand or Objectivism. ARCHN also has simple insults. It should be clear to anyone whose mind is not clouded by a steamy fog of erotic sentiment that Rand’s description of human sexuality contains about as much scientific value as the screeching of a cat in heat. It is precisely this ethical taint in the Objectivist politics that prevents Rand and her followers from being able to distinguish between political facts and their own wishful thinking. Pareto’s truculent realism provides a refreshing contrast to the usual political twaddle presented by soft-headed idealists like Rand and her followers. It is the practical inexperience of intellectuals like Rand and her followers which, when combined with their intransigent hubris, encourages them to believe that their abstruse chatter can exercise a tangible effect on the course of history. A man of experience would never accept such nonsense. ... Rand and her followers have rendered themselves utterly useless to the cause of freedom. Rand and her followers are egregious abusers of this fallacious mode of describing historical facts. If this seems like a cheap verbal trick, well, that is precisely what it is. The trouble is that [Objectivism's] notion of contextual certainty is entirely worthless. As usual with rationalizations of this sort, the arguments advanced to defend it were inept and confused. I do believe [Chris Sciabarra's] suggestion that Hegel and Rand shared the same basic method of thought comes pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. At bottom, [Objectivism's axioms] are merely pretentious reformulations of several irrelevant truisms. [Ayn Rand] suffered from the delusion that political problems could be solved by manipulating conceptual constructions. In [Ayn Rand's] eagerness to prescribe how man ought to be, she blinds herself to what he really is. OK you get the idea. Study It takes a lot of study to understand Objectivism very well. GN did not do an adequate job. World of Warcraft takes the typical person over 10,000 hours to get good at. When people seem to get good faster, it's because they already had pre-existing relevant skill (e.g. from playing other games). Some people never get good at it. Chess is a harder game than World of Warcraft. It takes more work to get good, and many more people never get good at it, even after decades. Objectivism is a lot harder than chess. GN never acknowledges or discusses this. He never considers that maybe sometimes the problem is he didn't study Objectivism well enough. He doesn't explain what he did and didn't do to study Objectivism. He doesn't outline all the great lengths and efforts he went to to learn Objectivism. Did he try very hard at all? Did he try using rational methods? We don't know. (But we can perhaps guess in the negative, judging by the book's content.) Evidence and History At the beginning of the nineteenth century, religious belief actually intensified, especially in England and America. This is an interpretation of history presented as a fact. Usually there would be some authority being quoted and a cite to where the authority asserted it. In this case even that is missing. But the important thing is that ARCHN frequently interprets history according to its own philosophy and premises, then treats its conclusions as historical facts and evidence. History consists of one long and uninterrupted testimony to this fact. Everywhere in history we find individuals governed either by sentiments (e.g. sentiments of religion, nationalism, humanitarianism, etc.) or by desires (e.g., economic interests, political ambition, vanity, sex drives, etc.). This is assertion that historical facts prove ARCHN right. It does not acknowledge that he has used his philosophical ideas to interpret history. These are interpretations of history, not plain facts. No investor will give money to some fledgling entrepreneur just starting out. Venture capitalists do exactly that today. GN's pessimistic view of life was refuted by practical facts before his book was published (2001). It's easier for new entrepreneurs without reputations to raise money today than in 2001, but it was already possible and happened b