---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@kurtweber.us Date: Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ayn Rand and Wikipedia To: Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com
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 I like the rational self-interest part, and I mostly like the capitalism part, but some other parts seem outdated and non-intuitive.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. -- Kurt Weber kmw@kurtweber.us
Anirudh Bhati wrote:
From: Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@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 I like the rational self-interest part, and I mostly like the capitalism part, but some other parts seem outdated and non-intuitive.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
Darwin explained it first and best, in Descent of Man.
Consider a village where the genes differ from the average village in that 10% of the population will be foolishly aggressive, take great risks in war, and get killed before they can reproduce. This village is on the average still likely to leave more descendants than the average village because the other 90% will be protected better from aggression.
Other direction too: a village where 10% of the population choose not to reproduce, but devote themselves to helping the children of the other 90% get a wider experience than their parents would have time to do, what with the need to provide for all their children. That village also may do very well.
Where the balance lies depends on the detailed circumstances, thus showing the limited applicability of theory to practical affairs.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anirudh Bhati wrote:
From: Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l