From: Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)kurtweber.us>
On Wednesday 07 May 2008 08:27, you wrote:
Now maybe this has nothing to do with
Objectivism. I don't know that
much about Objectivism with which to comment. I do plan on reading
more about it, but I don't think I'm going to subscribe. I like the
rational self-interest part, and I mostly like the capitalism part,
but some other parts seem outdated and non-intuitive. Did Rand ever
reconcile her so-called "Objectivist metaphysics" with modern physics?
They seem to contradict one another.
Perhaps it is modern physics that is in error.
Science is not truth. Science's epistemology results in building models that
merely serve as an aid to understanding what *appears* to be true, without
necessarily actually describing what *is* true.
I would submit that philosophy is a vastly superior means for apprehending the
Universe than science, precisely because philosophy's method, reason, is much
more reliable than science's.
This is a bizarre statement. Philosophy
underlies science and the
scientific method to start with. Stating that *any* philosophy leads to
"apprehending" what is absolutely true is as good as stating that one is
impervious to illusion. Some philosophies purport to rely on reason,
but at the heart of all reasoning lies a set of empirical axioms. The
philosophy (or science) that does not recognize that would do better to
call itself a theology.
Ec