“It is not a novel that should be thrown aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

---- Dorothy Parker about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

The so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand, known as Objectivism, has become a rather odious cult in the United States. Europeans find it baffling, while academic philosophers use it as opening for easy jokes. If a philosophy conference is getting especially dull and grim you can simply say the name Ayn Rand and you will get at least a few amusing jabs at her. Followers of Rand are impervious to any criticisms of her work however. When one mentions the obvious problems and contradictions in her work they are greeted with an almost religious parroting of her maxims. Maxims are really all they are because Rand rarely gives justification for any of her claims but simply states her point of view as emphatically as possible and then she (or her followers) accuses anybody who disagrees as being irrational. What follows is a detailed critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy with the work of REAL philosophers used to form a number of objections to her claims. If anybody doubts that my portrayal of Rand is an accurate representation of her philosophy then I invite you to go to aynrandlexicon.com where her philosophy is presented in great detail by Objectivists.

PART ONE: METAPHYSICS AND EPISTEMOLOGY

Objectivist Metaphysics are a complete con job. The whole point of the study of metaphysics is to try and derive objective reality from the subjective reality that human beings experience through their senses and consciousness. The three most famous approaches to this are those done by René Descartes, David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Descartes tried to prove the epistemological position of rationalism by stripping away all knowledge that can possibly be held in doubt. His conclusion from this was that only his own existence was certain (I think therefore I am) and that all knowledge must be derived from that certainty. Hume moved in the completely opposite direction and doubted that even “the self" existed, reducing human consciousness to a bundle of sense data. Kant tried to resolve these issues between rationalists like Descartes and empiricists like Hume and his complex metaphysics now form the basis of modern analytical philosophy while both Hume and Descartes still exert a huge influence.

Rand’s solution to the problems presented by these three giants of philosophy is to completely ignore them altogether. Her metaphysics are based on “objective reality” in which she states the human identity and consciousness are the basis. So basically Rand says. “what you see is what you get.” The thing about Rand’s brazen philosophy is that after side stepping the whole question of whether we can derive an objective reality and what exactly our criteria of an objective reality is, she immediately states that her metaphysics are completely objective based on reason.

The thing that is crazy about this is that she gives no argument to why this is objective at all. She claims that the facts of experience and of science are completely objective despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. Rand makes no attempt to address scientific realism, and arguments against it, in any way. She just states “A is A” and goes on about her merry way.

We have a number of problems with this. While there are facts that we can derive from a priori (before experience) means, these are very few. Kant included in his philosophy the idea of synthetic a priori knowledge. This distinction is facts that are self-evidently true but only when we understand the “language” in which they are presented, such as math problems. The rest of knowledge is a posterori (from experience) and for this to be verifiable as genuine knowledge it must be falsifiable. (testable) Rand’s concept of metaphysics is to lay the groundwork for her moral theory, which then serves as the groundwork for her political theory. The problem with this is that moral claims are not falsifiable and therefore have no validity as scientific claims.

Rand’s epistemological position is reason. She basically claims that all facts can be derived from reason alone. Immanuel Kant made similar claims but came to completely different conclusions so this makes him Rand’s chief rival. Kant also dismissed the idea that humans could ever truly know objective reality because our senses are necessary parts of our way of interacting with the world. Rand rejects this premise despite the fact that she has absolutely nothing to base it on. Kant made the claim that how we experience the world is based on intuitions. We perceive time and space a certain way from our perspective because of our intuitions but basically an alien race on another planet might perceive these same concepts differently. This does not mean that time and space do not exist only that our perceptions of them are subjective. Anybody who has read a science fiction novel, like Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, should have no problem with this concept but Rand rejects it outright with no real argument or evidence against it.

Rand makes a complete straw man of Kant, "man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others; therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind because he has eyes—deaf because he has ears—deluded because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist because he perceives them." This is not what Kant is saying at all. He is just saying that human perception is limited and our way of perceiving things may not be the only way of perceiving things. Kant’s argument is that while we can know things about objective reality through reason we can never know things about that reality that is apart from our perception.

It is interesting to note that Rand could have sidestepped this whole problem by taking the approach that the existentialists took. Existentialist philosophers rejected the idea that science could present us with concrete values of how to live our lives. They based their ethical philosophies on individual human drives and desires. Rand rejects this idea, once again with no real evidence or argument made. She insists that her philosophy is completely objective and based solely on reason. Her reasons for this seem to be only so she can bully anybody who does not agree with her by saying they are irrational.

PART TWO: ETHICS

Since Rand has come to metaphysical conclusions based on false premises it should come as no surprise that she continues to establish her ethics along the same vein while basing the whole idea on her bogus metaphysics and epistemology. Rand’s philosophy is a form of egoism. She argues that self-interest is moral and that altruism is immoral. Her argument for the whole thing goes like so: “An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, and that which threatens it is the evil.”

The problem with this is that it runs straight into the is / ought fallacy as first introduced by David Hume. Hume stated that a moral value (an ought) cannot be derived from a physical fact (an is). Rand is actually aware of this famous philosophical problem (you could have knocked me over) and this is her response.

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

Ummmmm….correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that the same thing that she said before? It is almost like she didn’t answer the question at all but just repeated the same thing she had already said with more emphasis.

Anyway, Rand is wrong about this too. Just because you value your life doesn’t even mean that you should defend it at the cost of everything else. What about the soldier that jumps on the grenade to save the rest of his platoon? “What a loser!” Rand would say and by her philosophy not only is he a loser but he just committed an act that she judged to be immoral. Jumping on a grenade and saving everybody else’s life is an immoral act and I fail to see why it wouldn’t be using Rand’s own philosophy. She considers altruism to be immoral and you don’t get more altruistic then that.

Another important thing that fans of Rand don’t get about this objection is that there is a difference between something I value, like I value my car, and a moral value. Equality is a moral value. Liberty, altuism and justice are abstract moral values and you simply cannot derive them from physical facts about the world.

David Hume would object to Rand thusly; after he had completely destroyed her with the is / ought fallacy he would tell her that he believed that the foundation of morality is derived from moral intuitions that we as human beings all share. A person who does not share these moral intuitions is morally blind like a color blind person cannot see color. Hume would probably consider someone who lived by Rand’s philosophy with no guilt or regret a sociopath.

The funny thing is that Rand bases her own morality on one of these intrinsic human values and that value is being human itself. Both Rand and her archenemy Immanuel Kant start their moral philosophy from the same place. They both base their morality on the idea that every human being is intrinsically valuable. Kant forms the basis of his morality as acting as a free and rational person and on always treating people as not means to an end, but ends in themselves. Rand flips this on its head and says that human beings should value themselves above all other people and that altruism is allowing yourself to become the means to others ends. There is a huge logical problem with this.

Kant says that we have a duty to the rest of humanity and that duty is to help our fellow man to be as free as possible. When we treat others as ends in themselves we validate their intrinsic value as human beings and therefore validate our own value. If we treat people as Rand would have us treat them then we are invalidating the very value that she is basing her whole morality on in the first place. To not value the needs and lives of others as much as our own is to invalidate the entire idea that all human individuals have intrinsic value. We cannot say that every human being is subjectively intrinsically valuable to themselves because that is not objective and it throws Rand’s entire claims of an objective philosophy right out the window.

It is also worth noting that Rand straw mans Kant yet again when she addresses the idea of duty in her writing. “The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.” Ummmm…no. I just explained what the point of duty is to Kant and it is the same value that Rand based her philosophy on but in Kant’s case at least he is logically consistent. And isn’t her philosophy supposed to be based on reason only, not motives desires or interests? Sorry Ayn, you lose again.

PART THREE: POLITICS

Rand supports capitalism because it is the most free system. I don’t really have a problem with this argument per se but I do question Rand’s version of freedom. To Rand, freedom means being able to do what you want when you want to do it. There are many philosophers who share this view, including David Hume, but it isn’t the only version of freedom out there. A second version of freedom is freedom based on autonomy and that version is the idea that freedom doesn’t mean simply having your desires fulfilled but maximizing the number of options you have to pursue whatever goals you may want to pursue. I already addressed this question in my hub HOW TO BUILD A STATE or WHY SHOULD THE RICH PAY HIGHER TAXES? and I will link that hub at the end of this one so I don’t have to address that very long argument over again.

Another main problem I have with Rand’s view is that all her political arguments result from a false dichotomy. She states over and over again that you really only have two choices, capitalism and socialism. The problem with that is that you obviously don’t. If that is the case then every developed country in the world, including the United States is a Socialist country. Socialism (or collectivism if you prefer) and capitalism have co-existed in the United States government since the beginning. We have a lot of values in our society that contradict each other. We respect the rule of law but most people think that there are times when breaking the law is justified. We believe in individuality but we also believe in equal opportunity.

Rand herself has this problem in her philosophy. She says that force is unjustified but gives us no real criteria to judge this on. Then she turns around and addresses the idea of anarchy. Rand believes in a night watchman state and this basically means that the government can use force when it benefits the rich but can’t do so when it benefits the poor. This really makes no sense whatsoever. To Rand taxation is theft but then what is the debt owed for the benefits society gives us? Don’t we get some benefit from living in a society, like roads, military protection, police? Once again my previous Hub addresses this in much greater detail which is a pretty good thing because Ayn Rand never does.

Sindre Rudshaug on May 28, 2020:

Already in the first line after the allegation, you make a mistake thats so easy to point out for a third-grader.

"The whole point of the study of metaphysics is to try and derive objective reality from the subjective reality that human beings experience through their senses and consciousness."

Reality is reality, it is objectively discoverable. The fact that a stone smashes into your head is objectively, methaphysically true. How you interpret it is subjective. First existence exists, THEN discover it. If the existence of existence was untrue, there would be nothing to discover and nobody to discover it.

All the rest is a fallacy, resting on your first ignorant idea.

Zeray Kalayu on April 11, 2020:

Your critique of Ayn Rand and her comprehensive philosophy dubbed Objectivism is completely biased and untrue.

What made you mention Kant, Descartes and Hume BUT not Aristotle, greatest philosopher where the titles of Atlas shrugged are named after the laws logic discovered by him(Aristotle).

The law of identity: P is P( or A is A as you said in your critique)

The law of non-contradiction: P is not non-P.

The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

Your critique of her other branches of philosophy can be blown up briefly but it's a waste of time to spend a great deal of time defending for a straw man's critiques.

ben95 on December 03, 2019:

Your entire critique of her ethics is based on a misunderstanding on your part. She does NOT say man has intrinsic value, as in value to no particular valuer. Man's life is valuable in so far as it is valuable to himself, and perhaps to his family, friends, etc.

The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is not a false one. To the extent you agree with one, you must disagree with the other.

And is/ought is indeed a false question.

Blanche Du Bois on October 12, 2019:

I hate Rand as much as the next guy, but "Socialism (or collectivism if you prefer) and capitalism have co-existed in the United States government since the beginning." is a shit take.

Adam on September 13, 2019:

This was awful. I will be doing a point by point refutation.

Todd Reinhardt on August 28, 2019:

Objectively, altruistic ethics rationalizes self destruction, and for society to destroy others at the whim of the elites. She nailed it, she nailed the loser who wrote this nonsensical piece. She described the destroyed, unhappy world we live in today.

Rose on July 09, 2019:

Thank you for this great takedown. I have come across the weird and disturbing “logic” of objectivism via the Lifebook program. Founders Jon and Missy Butcher are promoting certain parts of Ayn Rand’s books and objectivism as a way to achieve financial success and happiness. I don’t think they are diehard fans, since they acknowledge Rand has some problems, they obviously care about people and don’t seem like arrogant jerks like Rand, but I think you’ve pointed out here that the philosophies Rand pulled from are vastly superior sources to investigate.

It seems like because of her childhood experiences, Rand was stuck in a defensive mode and decided to worship her own ego. Thus, “objective sensory perception” in her case was actually just permission to indulge in the non-extraordinary psychological delusion that whatever thoughts her mind produced must be genius level stuff. Sort of, “I think I’m smart and a philosopher, therefore I am”. What a coincidence that whatever patchwork ideas supported her personal life choices just happened to also be the only “morally righteous” ones as well!

After meeting a few libertarians who claimed their opinions were superior because their minds were totally logical and non-emotional (even though their arguments were full of fear, paranoia, tribalism and contempt for certain people), I was wondering where this dysfunctional thinking pattern came from and why it made sense to them. These are actually smart people in many ways - how do they bend their minds around the idea that just because they know one topic well or have a successful business, that means they have suddenly been gifted with some super-human brain free from bias, which only processes “facts”, and that after analyzing all of those facts through their logical minds, it produced the totally logical and non-biased conclusion that their ideas are always correct!? Not only that, but also that their own life experiences are the only ones that can possibly exist - if they didn’t see it happen, it didn’t happen.

Henry Ralph Rawls from San Antonio, Texas on July 07, 2019:

I agree with chanelstevan’s remarks, and again offer my comments of 8 years ago:

"Read the preface to Ayn’s book “The Virtue of Selfishness “ and you will get the full gist of her philosophy. All the rest of her books expand on these ideas and us elaborate stories (entertaining tomes) to make her points.”

Essentially, she says that we are all selfish. Only occasionally does this rise to the level of enlightened self interest. The current White House occupant, ongoing depredations in the RC church, and extremist terriourism all make this apparent.

chanelstevan on July 05, 2019:

You did a great job on the critical thinking portion of this article. But I don't think you truly understand the fundamentals of objectivism. There are quite a few areas where you completely misrepresent her philosophy. I recommend reading more into her work and understanding it first from the objectivist point of view completely before critiquing it.

Vincent on May 02, 2019:

Just what do you mean by "equality" though?

Howard the Roark on May 01, 2019:

An Objectivist is an individual who sees that Rand's philosophy corresponds to reality, and does so using his own reason and logic. A cultist is a fool who blindly follows, without the use of his reason. Your criticism can be improved upon, but you must first fully understand who you are criticizing.

Nathan Deveney on April 02, 2019:

Also, could I ask for clarification on how individuality and equal opportunity are contradictory?

ndeveney11@gmail.com

Nathan Deveney on April 02, 2019:

If someone could clarify for me the context Rand uses when referring to taxation as theft because isn't there always the possibility that if you don't get something in exchange for your taxes then it is in fact theft.

Shoot me an email at ndeveney11@gmail.com

DrSproc on July 22, 2018:

Any rant that starts with "so-called" or "REAL philosophers" is a deal breaker. Any sentient being can philosophize, it's not a licensed profession and writing "so-called" to demonized it, is a red flag right away. Sorry, but such writing doesn't work on me, worse it's unconvincing and feeble in reasoning. Not that I'm an Ayn Rand nut.

BillRandall on May 31, 2018:

others do NOT necessarily have any intrinsic value. Most are nothing more than dead weight (as in the keel of a boat) that the productive "sails" or engines have to drag thru the water. Just like ticks are not only of no value to their hosts, but indeed are threats to the very lives of those hosts. This guy doesn't want other people judging his value, cause he knows that he doesn't offer any.

Vodk on March 13, 2018:

"This is not what Kant is saying at all. He is just saying that human perception is limited and our way of perceiving things may not be the only way of perceiving things. Kant’s argument is that while we can know things about objective reality through reason we can never know things about that reality that is apart from our perception."

LMAO same difference! Our way of perceiving things might not be the only one, but since we cannot be other than what we are, that means, human beings, that's ALL we have and that is Rand's point. There are no means of knowing physical reality than through our senses and the rational conceptualization of those sensorial perceptions. Kant really made a mess, but please, continue laughing Rand off in your academic circles; objectivists don't need it and that is why academic philosophy becomes more and more irrelevant while Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead keep getting major sales.

Bongstar420 on March 08, 2018:

I disagree. Moral claims are falsifiable. It just so happens that most morality is subjective and not based on actual objective effects in the minds of the idea holders. One of my primary problems with rosenbaum was her immorality....IE. That the wealthy have the right to deny life and liberty to those who don't "qualify." Its difficult to explain this, but essentially she is cool with a small minority sucking up all resources and denying the "undesirables" born outside of wealth self sufficiency unless they submit to slavery to the owner (working for the owner's profit) .

Rick Ballan on September 04, 2017:

Well said and thank you. Indeed, whereas Rand rails against the "altruist/collectivist" who acts for "the greater good", her entire philosophy is based on the tacit assumption that capitalism is that greater good. This is one of the many contradictions that exist all throughout her writings. It's not real philosophy but more like a self help book for aspirational small business owners.

Bigguy on August 14, 2017:

Your sarcasm against Rand leads one to believe you doubt your own argument.

Charles Bagan on February 03, 2017:

Your critique is very flawed at best.

Let us address epistemology. First, we may only deal with this reality. Do not mention an a different reality, or another arbitrarily and fallaciously created being's perspective- it is this reality alone we are talking about. This pressupposes a question: a reality perceived by whom? Man. Reality, as it relates to man, are the only means by which one can objectively observe it. Rand does not attempt to answer your "what if questions" nor your "unknowable" questions. One can't ask be to answer a negative.

When we identify any scientific principle, we are not concerned with "why" it exists- that "unknowable" answer you seek. We are concerned only with the fact that it DOES exist- and that we know it. Take pi, a number indispensable in all mathematics and sciences: it is infinite; it's exact quantity is unknown. Yet we know that it exists and we have identified it's importance. Man may not step outside of the boundaries of that which he knows- objective reality. He may postulate any given number of theories as to "why", but one can not use ask "why that it is" to discredit "that it is". Man may not step outside of the boundaries of this reality; he has no answer based in truth on "why" reality exists, only that "it does".

Next, "ought vs. is". Rand never suggested that "because one values their life [they should defend it at all costs]." This is an utter perversion of her logic. She is not of the Nietzsche Egoism school. Selfishness, by dictionary definition: "[is] to be concerned with ones owns interests". This, as you should know, does not provide a moral evaluation. One valuing the sustenance of their life (the ends) does not imply that they may do so immorally (the means). The ends do not justify the means. As for you soldier example, this is not altruism to the man whom values his fellow soldiers. It is an utterly selfish act. In that situation, the grenade presents the alternative: life or death. If he dives away from the grenade only to save himself, with the price being the death of his (unaware) fellow soldiers, at the result of living the remaining time of his life in agony- it is not a sacrifice for him to jump on the grenade. It is selfish in that he would prefer death over the emotionless, lifeless state resulting from not. Yes; life is still that mans greatest value. However, this situation that has been given is such where an alternative exists that the consequences will not allow one to value his life.

Equality- of what might I ask? Man is equal only so far as in his rights. When concerned with his rights as it relates to himself, it is positive. He may act and do whatever it is that he please. Conversely, when he comes across another man, it is a negative. He may not infringe on that mans right. In essence "man has the right to do anything, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another man." Your entire point says you know nothing of Rand, or are intellectually dishonest, resorting to perverting her logic. Man is an end in himself- that includes all men. Equally, her philosophy does not state that you may have no empathy or concern for your fellow man. It states that: you have no moral obligation to your fellow man. Do you see the difference? You are free in so choosing to devote your life to the poor, the sick, the elderly- but you are not obligated to. You are free to act with kindness to all men- but you are not obligated to. The rational premise, strict to her core beliefs however, would only be to do so when it coincides with your own self interests. If your wife is sick, it is NOT a sacrifice to pay for her treatment.

Finally, your grotesque a analysis of her view on the role of government. (Strictly from her philosophy). The government acts only to protect individual rights- a redundant terms as those are the only rights. The government of course has necessary and legitimate functions in so doing. I will not get into specifics in the Science of Politics nor the Philosophy of Government; but I will touch your inconsistencies. It is constrained by mans rights. It may only use force in RETALIATION to a person who INITIATES the use of force. It does not "only protect the rich". There is no such thing as "economic rights" only individual rights. In a truly unregulated capitalist society, the government has no right to interfere in the affairs of private citizens. Of course, it should be implied, that the government has no right to use force or to coerce men. It has not right to point a gun at a man and rob him- to take taxes. If, however, it is voluntary, such as maintaining a police force, roads, military; such actions are entirely moral. Though, that is why taxes are apportioned; whereas the income tax is not. The income tax is theft, taking money from one and giving it to another. The Declaration of Indepencd says "the pursuit of Happiness", not "Happiness". You have the right to take the proper steps in so achieving your happiness, but you have no right to demand others to do so for you. You may not use force based on the principle that mans means of survival is his reason. Unlike animals, man changes his environment to suit his needs, to do so requires the process of thinking. Muscle and mind; force and thought- these are opposites. If life is mans standard of value, the source of his rights, and his means to sustain it is by a process of thinking- by using force you destroy his means to live.

GEHD on January 20, 2017:

I do wonder how much people have applied science and psychology to Rand's philosophy.

Her philosophy depends a lot on an individual's consciousness, senses, and perception. But as science has shown us, our senses are kind of crap. Our memories are unreliable, we are very easily fooled and distracted, we are extremely prone to bias, not to mention the fact that we only perceive a tiny sliver of the spectrum of our environment. How does Rand's philosophy address the issue of our fallible senses?

And it should be noted that Rand was a victim of the fallibility of her own senses and biases. She was a lifelong smoker who denied any connection between smoking and cancer even though she had surgery for lung cancer.

David on September 04, 2016:

"She basically claims that all facts can be derived from reason alone." She does not claim this, "basically" or otherwise. If the other was going to bother to write about Rand's work, he might have taken the trouble to understand and to cite what she actually says. According to Rand--and she's right, obviously--our knowledge of facts starts with sense perception. There is much more that is wrong with this extremely hostile post, which starts with the title. Projection?

knight4444 on August 16, 2016:

Ayn rand was serverely mentally, if her followers actually studied her childhood, they might understand her better. Her mother was a sadistic monster!! They were Jews who were reasonably financial secure and when the Bolsheviks financially raped her parents, she was understandably emotional hurt. But her response was to go to the dark side!! Her philosophy of selfishness appeals mostly to conservative Caucasians!! Her philosophy is of white privilege!! Don't agree??? See what this nutcase said about the american Indians!!!! She what this maniac said about the Palestinians!!! BTW for all of her, so called religious Christian followers. You know she was a strong atheist!!! You know she was pro choice!! Lol. But conservative religious people have nothing in common with the teachings of Christ!

P George Stewart on August 12, 2016:

You get off on the wrong foot from here:-

"The whole point of the study of metaphysics is to try and derive objective reality from the subjective reality that human beings experience through their senses and consciousness."

The first thing to note is that Objectivism doesn't usually talk about "objective reality" in that way (I think Rand uses the term once or twice but makes clear that it's just a term of convenience, not a term of art), because for Objectivism, reality just is, whatever it is, but that fact is not "the objectivity of reality".

For Objectivism, objectivity is related to epistemology and a certain epistemological attitude and method - i.e. a method of taking existence and existents, entities, to be metaphysically primary, consciousness as secondary and metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active, and best active when it's "being objective", i.e. seeking to conform to a reality that goes the way it goes independently of the mind, and of consciousness.

Granted that our minds process reality in some sense, the goal is to be as objective as possible in that process - which means, to constantly have in mind the "underscored" tautologies called the "axioms" in any process of conceptualization and thought, especially beyond the perceptual level.

The perceptual level, in some sense, takes care of itself in terms of objectivity (the causal interactions between objects, sensory organs and brain are what they are, there's no question of "error" at that point). It's at the conceptual level where error becomes possible, and we need to be mindful that there's a heirarchy of concepts, that concepts are built on a foundation of concepts subsuming perceived entities/attributes, etc., and that those entities/attributes have natures that we are attempting to identify, and that when we start building up to concepts of concepts, we must always keep our construction tethered, ultimately, to that perceptual base. IOW, at the conceptual level, "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip", and the objectivity Objectivism is talking about relates to keeping thought on conceptual tracks in such a way that the concepts we're using can (if called upon) be reduced to their perceptual foundation, even if through several levels. It's really this entire process, which starts with the decision to focus on grasping a mind-independent reality that has an identity independent of one's thoughts, which one holds to be metaphysically primary, and to be discovered, that's meant by "objectivity" in Objectivism.

What you said about "subjective" and "objective" could be understood, in a loose way, as the problematic of much 17th/18th century "modern" philosophy, but even those philosophers didn't cast their problems in those terms. For them, the main problem was usually related to the idea that what we perceive/experience in the first instance are sensations, perceptions, experiences, seemings, etc. (later: sense-data, qualia, etc.), and the problem wasn't so much getting from there to an "objective reality", as it was trying to figure out what "reality" could possibly mean in that context: is the metaphysically real thing the sensations perceptions, or is there a meatphysically real thing behind them, that they could represent, or fail to represent? In that context, subject/object could be thought to be potential distinctions within the content of experience itself (e.g. Berkeley, Hegel), so "objective" wasn't necessarily "pointing outside" our representations in any way. But nor is it for Objectivism, since Objectivism doesn't have a representationalist foundation. For Objectivism (as for Aristotelianism, some Scholasticisms, Aquinas, Thomas Reid, Pierce, Austin, Wittgenstein, to name a few), we don't perceive sensations, experiences, perceptions, sense-data or qualia, we perceive objects. All those psychological items are secondary and derived, and abstracted FROM our experience of objects.

The "primacy of consciousness"of much of that 17th/18th century philosophy (apart from Reid and possibly - on the non-Idealist reading of him - Kant) stands in contrast to Objectivism's insistence on the primacy of existence and the identity of existents - their attributes, actions, etc. For Objectivism, the idea that consciousness can first of all be aware only of itself and its content is absurd, since, consciousness being intrinsically a relational term, to be identifiable AS consciousness, a thing must at some point be conscious of something not-it. As I said above: the psychological items such as sensations, experiences, perceptions, etc., are secondary and derived from our experience of objects.

Again, this kind of analysis isn't something completely outre for philosophy, it's the sort of thing the later Wittgenstein bangs on about occasionally, as also people like Austin, and in more modern philosophy, people like Kripke, Putnam, etc. Concepts like "experience" can't stand in isolation, because if they do, they're drained of meaningful content. Therefore, if there's such a thing as experience, there's such a thing as a world, and vice-versa (since the fact that there's a world has been identified). This is really more the meaning of Rand's "axioms" (which are cognate with Reid's "common sense" and some aspects of what Wittgenstein was talking about with "hinge propositions" in On Certainty - but many other philosophers, such as Aristotle, thought along similar lines).

The same logic can be seen, on another octave, as it were, when you understand Objectivism's critique of representationalism itself, and the global sceptical problems that arise from it: scepticism is intrinsically self-refuting, because it uses higher level concepts while denying the validity of their genetic roots (what Rand called "the fallacy of the stolen concept"). For example, the Argument from Illusion relies on there being at least one perception that's valid, namely, the perception by means of which the illusion as understood as really an illusion - but that being so, it therefore cannot be used to globally call into question the validity of perception.

Anyway, I could go on, but I just wanted to point out to you that you're missing a whole load of context - both in terms of having a rather narrow understanding of the history and problems of philosophy (which is why I'm mentioning the other names, so that you can situate Rand's ideas more easily) and in terms of Rand's own ideas.

There's no doubt that Rand wasn't primarily a philosopher, and she was idiosyncratic, and perhaps overly cranky about other philosophies. But the philosophy she did is actually quite deep and self-consistent - to crack it you'd have to understand it first, and you don't seem to be making much of an effort in that regard.

HRalph on November 20, 2015:

True, but the premise of enlightened self-interest would imply that while someone may say and/or even think that they are acting in the common good, subconsciously they (all of us) are driven by a selfish motive. e.g. in the case of non-enlightened self-interest, someone could likely be self deluded into thinking that slavery is for the common good because it helps the slave owner’s economy while also saving the slaves from the ravages of the African jungle as well as their pagan ideology -- to use an extreme example.

Under enlightened self-interest a slave owner may realize that slavery goes against his (her?) moral and ethical believes, but in the common (i.e, non-slave population) good, he should continue to keep his slaves but treat them very well in every way (after all, he is still protecting them from being eaten by lions and giving them honorable employment and a path to heaven via Christian orthodoxy.

Hmm, I wonder what deluded, selfish, rationale was behind the thinking of the Boston priests & fathers, as dramatized in the now-playing movie “Spot Light"

--- HRalph

aka Ralph-2

Ralph Deeds from Birmingham, Michigan on November 20, 2015:

Seems to me an appreciation of the "common good" is an important feature of government which was absent from Ayn Rand's so-called philosophy.

Hralph on November 18, 2015:

We’ll, at least if he read “The Virtue of Selfishness” he would know that behind seeming altruism lies self-interest (selfish) motivation. If so, this insight could help him manipulate conflicting points of view among representatives toward a consensus -- which has been missing for way too long. Let’s hope that his on (hidden?) selfishness is at least enlightened self interest. See, for example:

https://www.quora.com/Regarding-Ayn-Rands-enlighte...

Ralph Deeds from Birmingham, Michigan on November 17, 2015:

I recall that Paul Ryan, the recently elected Speaker of the House, is a fan of Ayn Rand. This doesn't bode well for our country or the GOP.

The Man In Black From Cooley Texas on November 14, 2015:

MichaelM, I thouroughly enjoyed the substance of your comments.

E.G.A.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on March 30, 2015:

"Ayn Rand gives no evidence or argument, bla bla... neither do you, guy, you just say she's wrong because you like a bunch of other dudes more because you were taught to and then use a whole lot of circular reasoning."

Well....I've read through all of the critique offered by Robes, and I have to say that it's about as complete as it gets. Not only does it dissect Rands "dime-store" philosophy entirely, but...it does so without ANY evidence of circular reasoning what-so-ever. I think that before tossing around logical fallacy terms such as Begging the Question (circular reasoning) it really helps to understand what that term means. If it were understood, then that accusation wouldn't come up. If you're going to make the claim that a circular argument is being used, then provide an example. None is offered. It's circular because Poo, say's so. But more importantly, this critique doesn't simply tell us that Rand's philosophy is a huge bowl of word salad, designed to justify greed, selfishness, and intolerance, while stroking the Ego; he tells us specifically WHY it does this, where it comes from, what influences it grabs to make it's claims and why it's foundationalism is false.

I haven't been to this Hub in a long time, but I've always been impressed with Robes grasp of philosophy. What I find telling is that I've never yet seen a defense of Rand that is as thorough as this critique is. Perhaps that's because people don't read her with a critical eye and are more prone to authoritarianism and find that she provides them with a theory of rationality that justifies their own authoritarian leanings. If your a self-serving tea-bagger, then Rand is your cup of tea.

"So her ideas aren't based on stuff you can never know or prove anyway - so what? "

It would be very important if we knew that we had people in congress that would legislate this kind of garbage which is completely self-absorbed, and encourages greed at the expense of everything else. And we do. If they intend to legislate Randian ideas, they affect all of us.

" How can you have evidence for a philosophy about reality without first knowing which philosophy is correct so you can decide which evidence is valid?"

That's what criticism is for. Proving your science or philosophy isn't what makes it rational. What makes it rational is it's ability to be criticized.

"All of philosophy is pseudo-philosophy - that's as good as it gets. Ayn Rand probably doesn't base her "philosophy" on anything because there's nothing to base it on."

No. That's not true. She does base her philosophy on the Ego. Everything about it is finds its foundation in what she calls rational self-interest. If you follow Rand, then you would know that. Even if you don't follow her, you would know that.

" You know more about the study of philosophy than me, but you're not very good at explaining it."

He's actually brilliant at explaining it. Maybe it just isn't your thing. To understand it, you need to know something about what came before current concepts. Philosophical concepts don't simply pop out of thin air. They usually build on ideas that were presented by others long ago. Either those ideas have been expanded on, or they've been relegated to the dumpster of ideas that failed to hold up to critically thinking.

Hralph on March 30, 2015:

Interesting analogy with the laws of physics! I wonder how the trade-offs between entropy and enthalpy/disorder and energy fit in.

Re: "Caring about the cause would seem as good a motivator as any”

I agree, but I’m thinking there’s still at least a subconscious selfish reason involved: e.g., a social motivation to be accepted by other like-minded people?

Robert Sacchi on March 29, 2015:

I can see the logic of that based on Physics. A body at rest (or in motion) would stay at rest (or in motion) until a greater for is exerted on it. That force could either be something tangible like money or intangible like a place in heaven, good will & respect from others, political influence ... you name it! Caring about the cause would seem as good a motivator as any; I want to contribute to this cause because I consider it a worthy use of my time or treasure.

Hralph on March 29, 2015:

Rand’s point is that we are all 100% selfish. Altruistic behavior is superficial while in fact it is self-interest behavior -- e.g., making donations to “worthy” causes is based not on caring about the cause (well, maybe a little bit, sometimes), but on what the donor personally receives: a tax deduction, a building or foundation in their name, a place in heaven, good will & respect from others, political influence ... you name it!

Robert Sacchi on March 28, 2015:

Interesting article. It would seem either 100% self-interest or 100% altruism would be a bad way to go.

Henry Ralph Rawls from San Antonio, Texas on July 12, 2014:

Read the preface to Ayn’s book “The Virtue of Selfishness “ and you will get the full gist of her philosophy. All the rest of her books expand on these ideas and us elaborate stories (entertaining tomes) to make her points.

Odysseus Makridis from Netcong, NJ on July 11, 2014:

That we would even be discussing the value of Rand's work as philosophy is alarming. But let's not slide into ad hominems. The point is this: show me any page of her ranting and I can analytically show you what fallacy is being committed - not as a matter of rhetoric or polemics or opinion but carrying the appropriate burden of showing that a fallacy is committed.

Random example: see how her musings on anarchy actually use words like "moral" and "immoral" NOT in the way her theory defines them but in the standard way which she presumably rejects! Elementary slide toward inconsistency.

What about false dichotomy - on which her view is predicated: either self-regarding or other-regarding duties; why not both?

But don't underestimate how people succumb to their wishful thinking and other emotive needs and cannot think straight. There is also a problem with not using a word like "philosophy" without ambiguity. To most people, "philosophy" is any odd body of reflections on the meaning of life, government, or anything you like. The tradition and academic study of philosopy are characterized by rigor which is not available to other disciplines outside of Math and the Sciences. It is not surprising, though it always vexing, that those who actually study philosophy are seen as arrogant and aloof and even politically motivated while philosophy itself is clinical in its application of technical tools that require time and effort to master. Rand, on the other hand, has the advantage that her rambling gets through directly and reaches those traumatized recesses - abscesses? - of wounded sould who think that they deserve better than how they have been treated.

Trying not to commit the genetic fallacy myself, may I also point out that Rand was unleashed in the radical 60s to do some damage to an unusually idealistic youth rebellion that was leaning rather left, if you can believe it? But, to be balanced here, the 60s radicals were themselves intellectually lazy and, so, contemptible. It is one thing to take it as being "cool" to drop names but you can't study difficult material under the influence of hallucinogens and while occupying campus buildings.

Ralph Deeds from Birmingham, Michigan on June 15, 2014:

It's noteworthy that Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand as is economics professor David Brat who recently defeated Eric Cantor in the Virginia GOP primary. I was infatuated by Rand's "The Fountainhead" in high school, but not by "Atlas Shrugged" many years later, having been inoculated by a liberal arts education in which she was not mentioned in my philosophy nor my literature courses. Her novels' characters are cardboard cut-outs and, as you pointed out so well, her philosophy doesn't hold water. Neverthless, her malign influence refuses to die!

Robephiles (author) on October 30, 2013:

@poo

1. This article is meant to talk about what Rand got wrong, which is almost everything. Descartes, Hume and Kant disagreed on a lot of things but they did get some things right. Some people are just incapable of understanding philosophy because it involves removing yourself from your subjective perspective and remove the things we take for granted. Just because you are not able to understand what I am saying does not eliminate the possibility that you are merely too stupid to understand it.

2. Consciousness is a fact. That isn't the part Rand gets wrong.

3. I actually agree with Hawking, but I think you have mangled his quote. The problem with Rand is that her philosophy DOES claim to have all the answers.

Bill Sego from Logan, Ohio on October 30, 2013:

It's called constructive criticism poo, not blatant and demeaning hostility. Your approach isn't necessary and is a horrible way of getting your point across. It's a distraction to the topic at hand, whether you agree with his or her points or not. Using your logic, you're basically doing the same thing. "Hey look at me, I can point out the inaccuracy in someone's grammar and make them look bad to get my counter point across." Don't be a hypocrite and, instead, focus on countering the points you don't necessarily agree with, not the grammar. I guess we can't all put together sentences as well as you...

poo on October 29, 2013:

"*sigh*", "your grammar is so bad" (you accidentally mistyped a few sentences too you know mister), "You are 0 for 2 so far", "I studied philosophy at school so I understand all about truth and God and the universe".

I got through the first section and had to laugh. Then the comments made me roll my eyes. Ayn Rand gives no evidence or argument, bla bla... neither do you, guy, you just say she's wrong because you like a bunch of other dudes more because you were taught to and then use a whole lot of circular reasoning. So her ideas aren't based on stuff you can never know or prove anyway - so what? What evidence is there for "I think therefore I am", anyway? How can you have evidence for a philosophy about reality without first knowing which philosophy is correct so you can decide which evidence is valid? All of philosophy is pseudo-philosophy - that's as good as it gets. Ayn Rand probably doesn't base her "philosophy" on anything because there's nothing to base it on. You know more about the study of philosophy than me, but you're not very good at explaining it.

From my limited understanding, I would guess that Rand assumes consciousness is a fact because you kind of have to do that to get any further. Otherwise you might as well stop at "I don't even know if I'm real, I could be a brain in a jar". You might be right, but it doesn't achieve anything. Stephen Hawking once said something really cool about before-the-big-bang, before time. I can't remember it word for word, but essentially, he said that stuff is by necessity outside of anything we will ever know or understand so we might as well forget about it - it could be God, it could be nothing, it could be everything, but we never get closer to the truth so worrying about it is pointless. I don't think Rand was necessarily right, but I do think her ideas are as useful for us to think about (why do we agree? Why do we disagree?) as any other.

I'll bet Descartes didn't have to write "REAL" (capital letters!) next to "philosopher" on his door in order to feel nice inside. Ayn Rand was probably foolish about a lot of things, maybe everything (I wouldn't know, I was looking for an article that might explain her viewpoint and I found none, certainly not here) but she was more fun to read than you.

Dreen Lucky from St. Paul, minnesota on September 17, 2013:

I very much enjoyed your hub. I would have to say that I agree and appreciate Kant's ideas/philosphies more than Rand. It was a great read and a good start to my day.

Robephiles (author) on September 05, 2013:

"It is very clear from your analysis that you do not have clue what Objectivism is all about."

I have never met an Objectivist who was able to explain the philosophy in a logical way that made sense. Ayn Rand's own concise explanation is nonsense to anybody who understands the history of philosophy. Objectivism is essentially a cult. There is no other way of putting it.

"Firstly - if you read what Objectivists published, you will not mix all philosophies all together as "internal conflicts of Objectivism". There are non."

It might be partially because of the bad grammar and spelling but I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. It is not unreasonable to expect Rand and her followers to be able to answer to the works of Kant, Hume and Nietzsche on the points that they disagree with them, especially since Rand herself directly referenced Hume and Kant but failed to refute them, and stated that Nietzsche was an influence but has profoundly misunderstood him.

"1) if you accomplish something valuable and get reward from others, do you feel your self-esteem to rise?"

This is a psychological claim not a philosophical claim. In fact, it directly contradicts Rand's claim of being objective. Nietzsche would point out that if your self esteem is dependent on reward or praise by others you are compromising your own individuality. You would have to define "valuable." What is valuable to others is not necessarily valuable to me. I'm sure slave traders in the 17th century felt very proud of trafficking human beings for profit.

"2) are business providers employing people by investing own money?"

You really have to take care of your grammar issue here. I also am not sure what you are saying here. The answer to this one is "not necessarily." In the United States some of our most profitable companies are not investing their own money but getting money from the government. Still, I have no idea what this question has to do with proving Rand's philosophy. You are 0 for 2 so far.

"3) is your choice what to buy, what to sell and whom to help?"

Not without some form of cohesion involved, unless you are so wealthy that you essentially have an unlimited amount of financial freedom. By Rand's own philosophy this is not true. Since a person's sole standard for value is his own life, according to Rand, he does not have a choice whether to buy food, only what kind of food to buy. There are many other examples that prove this wrong. Also, Rand argues that helping people for any reason is immoral, and since the whole point of morality is to set societal norms she would prefer you not have the freedom to help anybody.

"4) is basis for all above your mind and reason (based on own senses)?"

This is solipsism and almost nobody agrees with it. Also, there are a number of studies that show the vast majority of people do not base their ideas of value or morality on this concept. So this is both philosophically false, because it is by nature SUBJECTIVE but also psychologically false because it is not supported by normative human behavior.

You ask these questions as if they are self evident but none of the four are. In fact, I think they are all badly framed, simplistic and at their core false. Of course your grammar is so bad I might just be misunderstanding you.

Peter Novy on September 05, 2013:

Check it by yourself :

1) if you accomplish something valuable and get reward from others, do you feel your self-esteem to rise?

2) are business providers employing people by investing own money?

3) is your choice what to buy, what to sell and whom to help?

4) is basis for all above your mind and reason (based on own senses)?

If you answered all questions ""yes" then you agree with Objectivism

Peter Novy on September 05, 2013:

It is very clear from your analysis that you do not have clue what Objectivism is all about.

Firstly - if you read what Objectivists published, you will not mix all philosophies all together as "internal conflicts of Objectivism". There are non.

Bill Sego from Logan, Ohio on May 19, 2013:

Nice article and I couldn't agree more. There's no place for her ideals in a hostile world. There's enough greed and suffering to go around without her adding to it and giving it an "excuse." Most who adhere to her teachings are self-centered business executives and dare I say conservatives. She gives them a pass to be even more greedy and self-centered. It's sickening. The "meaning of life" is that we all get along and support one another when times are tough. Not make it worse by making the rich richer and poor poorer. That just promotes violence from the majority toward the elite minority. History provides a proven track record that oppression ALWAYS backfires on the oppressors. It just bewilders me that anyone would adhere to her so-called philosophy. Wonderful, well-written post.

Robephiles (author) on March 04, 2013:

It has been a long time since anybody has put a comment on here about the actual article. I have some points to make.

1. My point about Rand is that she does not address the metaphysics that came before her. If one proposes a "new" form of metaphysics they must participate in the two thousand year old conversation that came before them. My main point was that Ayn Rand does not give an epistemological basis for her metaphysics. Though Descartes was a skeptic he did build a metaphysical system. Kant could hardly be called a skeptic. His work is almost entirely in response to skepticism. Only Hume was really a complete skeptic about human certainty as you claim. Descartes even claimed humans could be certain about the existence of God!

2. Logical Positivism is a very fringe idea in contemporary philosophy. Descartes, Hume and Kant influenced EVERYTHING that came after them, so to say that they led to it is like saying that they led to Hegel, who almost nobody takes seriously anymore.

3. *sigh* "Rules of science." There is such a thing as the scientific method. Rand makes no ARGUMENT for any of these claims. She could make an argument based on reason or one based on empiricism. I show over and over again that her arguments based on "reason alone" are not logical. Incidentally, the fallacy you mention predates Rand but it does not apply here. Her metaphysical claims are purely empirical, since she uses the human perception of reality as the basis for her OBJECTIVE metaphysics. By saying this she is saying that science PROVES things and that anything PROVED by science is OBJECTIVE reality. So she is saying that science is the basis for metaphysics which you just claimed was the other way around. In fact, this is the most intelligent interpretation of Rand's metaphysics. I purposely gave her the most intelligent version of the argument to show how weak it really is. If you can come up with a better version of what her metaphysics could POSSIBLY mean, without cheating, I'd love toy hear it.

4. Plato doubted that the senses could provide any meaningful data. Descartes also doubted this. Hume however is pretty much the opposite of that. In fact, Hume claimed that knowledge could come only from the senses. This is basically the same claim that Rand makes though she dismisses all the problems. Rand and Hume agree that knowledge comes from the senses. Rand and Kant agree that the basis for human morality is the intrinsic value of the individual human being. You make it sound like Rand's thoughts were not influences by the same things that influences these philosophers. You know who else you can trace back to Plato? Ayn Rand. My basic problem with Rand is that she cherry picks the stuff she likes from all other philosophers, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche most obviously, then dismisses all the objections to their philosophies, then changes everything she wants to change and then dismisses any objections to the changes she made. That is Rand in a nutshell basically.

David Hopper on March 03, 2013:

"The three most famous approaches to this are those done by René Descartes, David Hume and Immanuel Kant."

You should have just said that you're a skeptical leaning guy in terms of your philosophy, and anyone else would have been able to tell that you would find Ayn Rand ridiculous. All three men you mentioned criticized Aristotle and had problems with his philosophy. All three men are foundations in skeptical thought and had doubts of human beings ability to discover the truth. All three men provided the foundation for pragmatism and logical positivism, which led to an utter rejection of metaphysics, or as Marx called it; "Ideology."

In addition, the rules of science: i.e. proof or evidence cannot be used to criticize metaphysics, since without metaphysics there could be no science. So saying that Ayn Rand makes a metaphysical claim about the universe and provides no evidence for it is in fact a contradiction. This is a prime example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of the stolen concept or what is generally referred to as the fallacy of the self-refuting ideas, which is the basis of the vast majority of her critiques.

As you suggested if someone bases their metaphysics on all false premises, it's likely their whole philosophy will be flawed. And clearly you think Ayn Rand's whole philosophy is flawed, because the whole idea that man can be certain is viewed by you as a flaw. This idea was not created by any of the aformentioned people you mentioned, but was handed down to us all by Plato. Will Durant in "History of Civilization" correctly stated that many of the worst ideas and most destructive ideas in human history can be traced back to the ideas that Plato came up with in the Republic and it's ironic that all three of the men you mentioned as the most famous in regards to metaphysics, can all be traced back to Plato.

ScienceOfLife on January 14, 2013:

" I'm not inclined to buy that, or give it any credibility. What you're saying with this is that everything is relative"

Everything is relative? Where the hell did you get that from?! Please quote me directly... otherwise retract your mistake.

Understand, existence is objective. Reality wipes its butt with our opinions. The best we can ever do is explain a phenomenon rationally. We can never know for sure, have 100% certainty, or prove beyond a doubt, or claim Absolute Truth So Help Me God. This is all religious and political nonsense.

"That might involve producing Nessy, and opening him up to find the unfortunate fisherman, and maybe he can do that. Until he does, he might as well tell me that Pink Unicorns exist on Venus. It's just as valid."

Validity is a matter of OPINION! If a person wants to hypothesize Nessy, then good for him. If the hypothesis (in this case, exhibit A: Nessy) is a possible object, then we ASSUME its existence for the purpose of our theory. Nessy is far more rational than a ZERO-DIMENSIONAL PARTICLE after all! The Quantum Klub will tell you that nothing really exists, that particles are virtual, and that there are infinite alternate dimensions! Now THAT'S bullshit!

As for Unicorns on Venus, that would require an explanation as to how this "horse like" creature got there and can survive the horrendous temperatures. So no, that's IMPOSSIBLE.

Do I personally believe in Nessy? No. Is Nessy a possibility? A giant sea snake of some kind? Who knows! That's up to the person hypothesizing Nessy. If Nessy is a valid object, then we take it at face value to understand the theory. We don't ban and censor the Nessyites from taking part in the discussion. We don't persecute or ridicule like they do in the cults of Quantum and Relativity and Atheism and Surrealism and Modernism and Mathematical "Physics".

The only test they need to meet, is that when pressure by the ferocious audience as to WTF this Nessy creature IS, that the presenter had better be able to produce the goods! A mock-up at the very least! Then whether you believe or disbelieve AFTER you've heard the full story, is your own business and doesn't concern science one iota.

ScienceOfLife on January 14, 2013:

"Based on what? What was the criteria used to establish that it's rational?"

Rational means there are no contradictions, your key terms are defined unambiguously, and all the alleged objects of your theory can be illustrated so the audience understands what you're saying objectively.

If a theory is rational, then it is a POSSIBLE explanation of events. We are not omniscient, so we can never "know". We are not gods, we cannot fly back through time, etc. So the best science can do is work out a POSSIBLE explanation aka theory for what may have happened in the past.

(Predictions are also nothing to do with rational science. This is part of the contradictory anti-philosophy of empiricism. Evolutionary theory is not "proven" via "predictions" despite the pressure put on Darwin by the closet atheists known as "empiricists" who had their own agenda; evolutionary theory was an EXPLANATORY mechanism about past events.)

"Well,..I don't subscribe to that at all. We always adopt a theory according to it's plausability, and that in itself makes it relevant until it's not. That's not the same as belief."

It's exactly the same! Probability is not objective, it is an observer bias. It's a personal matter and post-scientific. Rationality rules out all that nonsense. Either something is possible, or impossible -- that's it, period! No middle ground, no belief, no opinions, no probabilities and personal certainties. Nature doesn't care about a human monkey's personal certainty or calculated probabilities. The Moon exists or doesn't; the man was dead or alive; atoms have a physical shape or they don't; the Yeti exists or it doesn't.

It's not a matter of knowledge or guesswork or likelihood. We ASSUME the yeti, or the moon, or the atom, in order to explain our theory. This is the scientific method.

cajbnackjn on January 13, 2013:

Article full of ad hominems, straw man and no true scotsman fallacies.

lastmanstanding on December 10, 2012:

hail obozo.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on August 09, 2012:

"A theory is never believed, or disbelieved, because belief plays no role in what is rational. A theory is never true, or false, or proven/disproven, or — as you said — taken on authority/consensus. This is all subjective crap!"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're telling me something I don't disagree with. I already know that no theories are ever proven.

"The criteria is rational (and/or objective)"

Based on what? What was the criteria used to establish that it's rational?

"If there are two copeting rational theories, then what you personally believe is your own business. We don't persecute or have dogmas in science and (hopefully) philosophy."

By competing, do you mean contradictory? As you already pointed out, belief isn't material here. If a theory is faced with a contradiction, it's been falsified, and dumped. I don't know about you, but when I see a theory that has a contridiction I don't hold it because of some belief. It's gone. End of story. If the idea is to arrive at or closer to the truth, which is all that matters to me. then a philosophy or ideology can be examined and criticized to see if it holds water. If it doesn't it's fair game. There are no sacred cows. Rand for example is dogmatic and presents a theory of rationality that is full of holes. Why anybody would hold to that is beyond me.

"As to whether a theory is "likely" or not, or its "degree of plausibility" is irrelevant and subjective (belief). To you, it's unlikely that Nessy ate The Fisherman. To your neighbour, who witnessed events, it happened as a "fact".

Well,..I don't subscribe to that at all. We always adopt a theory according to it's plausability, and that in itself makes it relevant until it's not. That's not the same as belief. It's simply functioning based upon what we know at this time. As for my neighbor witnessing Nessy eating the Fisherman, if he can demonstrate that as true, then it is. That might involve producing Nessy, and opening him up to find the unfortunate fisherman, and maybe he can do that. Until he does, he might as well tell me that Pink Unicorns exist on Venus. It's just as valid. I'm not inclined to buy that, or give it any credibility. What you're saying with this is that everything is relative, and I don't agree. I'm not a relativist at all. I think you can arrive at a place much closer to the truth by eliminating those things that are demonstrably false.

Wow on August 08, 2012:

Rand certainly generates a lot of comments. I think it is a mistake to critique Rand from the perspective of the philosophic canon. It only seems to egg on people who love her and and can then whine: "but, but, but it's her ideas that matter not theirs". Most of her fan club probably haven't read much of the canon and won't understand that sort of critique anyway. In any event (as you point out), philosophy doesn't care a whit about Rand who is nearly universally viewed as both a light weight and blowhard by academic philosophers. It just doesn't make sense to take this approach.

On the other hand, why not just apply some good old fashioned common sense. Rand would appreciate this right?

1. Science and the individual.

The extreme individualism of Rand is ridiculous on its face. Take Atlas Shrugged for instance where several of the titans of humanity we are supposed to love and admire are scientists or inventors. One only need observe the history of science to immediately see that science is has not been driven forward by a handful of individuals. Certainly there were a few great thinkers who were present at the right moment to tie ideas together and push across certain boundaries, but science is at its heart a collectivist endeavor. Myriad thinkers contribute tiny bits of new knowledge, posit almost correct ideas, extend slightly the work of others, or event make the right mistakes at the right times, and what rises out of this is an overall progression of thought that eventually culminates in breakthroughs. Some of those breakthroughs are made by leaps of insight by great thinkers others are stumbled upon by accident by less great ones. One might even argue that there is a certain historical arc to the progression of science and that certain ideas only ripen at a certain moment in history at which point they are waiting to be plucked. Individuals play a role, but the great advancements in science and invention exist in a complex web of thought and action out of which it would be very difficult indeed to quantify the exact role of the individuals involved.

2. Fairness, proportionality, and luck.

In many ways, I'm living a Randian dream. I work at a company that started small, but has grown big. There are lot of great individuals here. Many of us have worked incredibly hard. The company now employs thousands and generates hundreds of millions in revenue. How did this happen- individual ability, very hard work, and . . . wait for it. . . a lot of luck. There are thousands of guys just like me who have worked as hard, are as smart, and were just not so lucky to have exactly the right ideas and opportunity at exactly the right time. There are a smaller number of guys just like me who are as capable and hardworking but have been exponentially more successful. The CEO (i.e. titan of industry) I work for is a brilliant man. The CTO (my boss) is a brilliant woman. They have both been successful in industry. Yet, Bill Gate has been more successful if we are to judge success as the market does (i.e. by using net worth as a proxy for value). Is Bill Gates 1000 times more capable and driven than the executives I work for? Is Bill 25,000 times more capable and driven than I am? These are back of the envelop figures but probably in the right galaxy. So where am I going here? Rand, in Atlas Shrugged at least, seems to attach a certain moral worth to success as defined by capital markets. If so, it is a morality that demands of its adherents not a little bit of good fortune.

3. Repeatability.

Rand seems to think that titans of industry achieve what they do through personal ability, ambition, and drive. One need only study the track records of US CEOs to see that this is only partially true (see #2 item). There is almost no such thing as a CEO who is consistently successful. She may have a great run at one company and then fail miserably at the next only to perform adequately in the three following that one. When individual ability and style are aligned with the right support staff in the right market at the right time you get great success stories. Duh. If, however, it was all about personal ability it would seem much more likely that the same handful of titans would always be successful. The books "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swann" by Nicholas Taleb are fascinating reads for anyone interested in luck, randomness, and rare events.

4. Capitalism.

So many people who call themselves capitalists seem to totally not get it. The great thing about capitalism isn't that it allows a few "great" individuals to succeed. It is the exact opposite! Capitalism is a powerful economic system because it allows many, many people to try and fail. When socialism fails the consequences are much different because it is the government and by proxy the whole country that fails. Capitalism is designed to allow a vast number of aspirants to through mud at the wall and see what sticks and what slides off without upsetting the whole system. With all these individuals trying to succeed sometimes everything aligns and the greater good is served and value is created. Meanwhile all the failure gets recycled. Competition IS good, but competition requires a lot of players and a lot of losers. Rand never seems to account for the losers.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 08, 2012:

"But, that the earth is flat, or not, isn't a theory: its just a plain description."

That's absolutely true. My point was that prior to our understanding of that, the idea of a flat earth was put forth without facts. Fact undermined the theory. So, it was merely a theory as I would understand it and was debunked later. Copernicus heliocentric theory changed things even more.

"Either it is, or isn't flat. A theory might be... WHY the earth is a sphere... or WHY ships don't sail right of the edge of our Flat Earth... or WHY the dinos went extinct... or whatever. A theory is a long, complex piece of work."

Well put. Facts replace theories. They either support it, or contradict it. I always tend to hold theories at arms length. I'm kind of a fact based guy. Political theories are always garbage. I always question or reject a political or economic theory that tends to inflict damage on people. Especially when it's cloaked in the Bible or buzz words like "freedom".

"We're not trying to "prove" the Yeti exists, or that the Earth is spherical."

I would not be inclined to try to prove that the Yeti exists or doesn't. It would be like trying to prove that Unicorns exist. I can't prove that they don't. That would be trying to prove a negative, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove that the do. When I see one, maybe I'll change my views. As for the earth, that's something that we can empircally measure. It's "map-able". The idea of the earth being flat was falsified long ago.

"I'm no fan of Popper and the Empiricist School though). Science should reveal nature's secrets and unlock mysteries."

You appear to be including Popper among the Empiricist School. He wasn't. He rejected classical empiricism and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper was a Critical Rationalist (he even coined the term) William Warren Bartley expanded that into "Pancritical Rationalism" by applying that to everyday life. Bartley pointed out “Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.”

I tend to avoid belief systems.

The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never

cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.

"So think of it like: hypothesis = assumptions, Theory = explanations. Hypothesis = static pieces, Theory = moving those pieces around. Hypothesis = photograph, Theory = movie."

I do. However I don't stop there. I begin there. The hypothesis = assumptions. The Theory = explanations, but are all subjected to criticism to determine if they bring us closer to the truth of the hypothesis and theory that supports it. I'm not inclined to accept any explanation that can't be falsified. What makes the hypothesis or the theory supporting it true? A theory isn't rational because it can be proven. ( they never are). It's rational because it's criticizable. If the theory is subjected to relentless criticism, and still stands, we hold on to it, until such a time when it doesn't. When that happens the theory is replaced by another that falsified it, and that stands until it's replaced by another. It's an endless process that constantly brings us closer to the truth.

I think too many people don't understand that we are fallible and can never own the truth. They want desperately to prove they are right. But we can get glimpses of it when we discard the garbage that obscures it. It's a stripping away process. Deductive rather than inductive. Kind of like a sculpture chipping away at a block of marble in order to reveal the form that lies inside.

"Assumptions includes the definitions, exhibits, facts, etc. We don't query those, we take them for granted, on face value, so we can understand a theory."

I don't argue with facts. But I do question definitions. Language can be vague, and there are many languages in the world making concepts even more vague. Mathmatics is probably the only universal language.

"In the theory we use the hypothesized "pieces" to explain something as part of our theory."

Yes. But that is all inductive and doesn't prove the theory. You're using things to support the theory. We can always find things that will support a theory. I'm more interested in looking for those things that disprove the theory. I wan't to know if the theory is false. Every hypothesis/theory is open to criticism. Unless is some metaphysical idea. Then it's not in the realm of science, but the supernatural, and I'm not interested in that. If it can't be falsified, then it's just somebody preaching a belief to me.

"Dino bone = exhibit. We're not trying to "prove" our dino bone exists, or might exist under the mud."

Right. The Dino bone exists and we see it. Why it exists becomes part of our theory. That theory is that creatures like this roamed the earth. What makes the theory work is that it stands up to criticism. The theory is falsifiable. We can deductively determine that the theory holds. Nothing has been offered to make that theory false so it stands. Maybe we'll find out that they all came from outer space some day, but until that happens the theory stands up to criticism.

ScienceOfLife on July 07, 2012:

@adagio4639

No that wasn't addressed at you specifically my friend, just a general comment re: what I hear about theories/science.

But, that the earth is flat, or not, isn't a theory: its just a plain description. Either it is, or isn't flat. A theory might be... WHY the earth is a sphere... or WHY ships don't sail right of the edge of our Flat Earth... or WHY the dinos went extinct... or whatever. A theory is a long, complex piece of work.

So, the Flat Earth or Sphere Earth would be part of the hypothesis, specifically the exhibits phase. We're not trying to "prove" the Yeti exists, or that the Earth is spherical. We're trying to EXPLAIN our theory. That's science (or ought to be: I'm no fan of Popper and the Empiricist School though). Science should reveal nature's secrets and unlock mysteries.

So think of it like: hypothesis = assumptions, Theory = explanations. Hypothesis = static pieces, Theory = moving those pieces around. Hypothesis = photograph, Theory = movie.

Assumptions includes the definitions, exhibits, facts, etc. We don't query those, we take them for granted, on face value, so we can understand a theory. In the theory we use the hypothesized "pieces" to explain something as part of our theory.

Another example. Dino bone = exhibit. We're not trying to "prove" our dino bone exists, or might exist under the mud. We're trying to use it as part of our theory, i.e. WHY it's there and what happened to the monster that it comes from.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"A theory is never believed, or disbelieved, because belief plays no role in what is rational. A theory is never true, or false, or proven/disproven, or — as you said — taken on authority/consensus. This is all subjective crap!"

I don't think I was making a point that any theory is believed or disbelieved. Belief is irrelevant as far as I can see. A theory can never be proven to be true, since attempting to do so would necessarily involve induction which won't prove anything. However it only takes one example to disprove a theory. The theory that the earth is flat, was falsified. We can now rule that out.

Where did I say anything is taken on authority/consensus?? Are you sure you're addressing the right person?

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"Any claim to be an end in oneself based on one's nature as a human being must be recognized as universal to all who are were or ever will be."

You're saying that it is a persons duty to recognize this theory based on an Argumentum ad Verecundiam argument with Rand as the authority?

I have to assume that you're a fallibalist. Perhaps not. But assuming you are, how can a fallible person come up with an infallible theory? No theory is ever proven, you must surely know that.

ScienceOfLife on July 06, 2012:

Actually the real issue with is/ought (morality) is that no-one ever bothers to define what they mean by "ought" (or "should", "rights", "must", "moral", "good, "bad", etc).

Something is implied, but never properly defined or reasoned out. If I say, for example, "people should not tell lies", is this just an opinion, i.e. "i would LIKE IT if people did not tell lies"? Or am I saying something else? If so, WHAT?!

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"Value cannot be a fact EVER"

I don't think this has gotten through to him. If value is a fact, I'd ask him to demonstrate that truth to me. He should be able to demonstrate them. So...“Values must be demonstrated true.” But, “values must be demonstrated true” is a value. Maybe he can demonstrate why it is true?

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"but the only satisfactory solution to philosophy teachers such as Robephiles is a direct "mathematical" syllogism deriving an ought from an is (which I think is a little silly)."

?? Yes...logic should be off limits when discussing the validity of a dimestore philosophy. How silly of him. So we should ignore the logical problems and embrace this stuff ad vericundium.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"Duty is the opposite of freedom."

No it isn't. I think you need to define freedom before you make that statement. It seems that you are taking the narrow view of freedom as deciding for yourself what you will do. Exercising prerogatives on a daily basis. That's one view of it. However another is the freedom FROM something that restricts you from doing what you might choose to do. When that is the case is it not your duty to do whatever you must to be free FROM what ever has you in chains? If Freedom is you goal, you have a duty to free yourself.

The Pilgrims came to this country to free themselves FROM the religion of the King. If the freedom to practice their religion was important to them, then they had a duty and obligation to find a way to do that. Duty is NOT the opposite of Freedom. More often than not, it is necessary for it exist.

I think it would be a difficult argument for you to tell anyone in the military that duty is opposite to Freedom.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"Given the subsequent comments by both of you, I would be most interested in your response to the is/ought explanation since that is the rock on which the entire normative half of Rand's philosophy (ethics and politics) rests."

The is-ought fallacy is when someone assumes a conclusion based on an ‘ought’ rather than an ‘is’. The major problem is that an ‘ought’ is often derived from an instinct, false premise, or cultural morality.

Is-Ought Fallacy Structure

Argument: A ought to be B therefore C

Reality: C cannot be logically verified by the ‘ought’ connection of A and B

What we're talking about here is Critical dualism.

Critical dualism is the view that there is no way to derive moral principles from matters of fact. In the traditional language of moral philosophy this dualism is often called “the is/ought problem”, as though philosophers have to find some way to get over it or solve it.

The problem arises because philosophers want to find some way to justify moral principles and the best way would be to find some way to derive moral principles from some set of facts, unless it is believed that they can be handed down from some supernatural authority. Almost everyone who has dealt with this issue has tried to answer it by reference to human nature or to the nature of ‘the good’. But each of these forks leads to a dead end: the first because anything that anyone can conceivable do can be attributed to human nature and the second because there is the question of defining ‘the good’.

It is interesting to note that the same logical structure underlies the is/ought problem and the problem of induction which looms large in the philosophy of science. In each case the hope is to derive general principles (natural laws in the case of science, moral rules in the case of moral philosophy) from statements of fact. In each case the problem arises from the desire for justification based on facts and in each case the problem is insoluble in principle. The way forward is to aim to establish critical preferences for scientific theories or moral proposals based on their capacity to solve the problem that they are supposed to solve, and to stand up to criticism.

People who preach the impotence of arguments are in a paradoxical position, analogous the paradox of the liar. Rands assumption of infallibility stands out in her dismissal of contrary views as irrational, which put her squarely in in the cross hairs.

Is and Ought

Hume showed that moral (ought) proposals cannot be logically derived from factual (is) propositions. Moral philosophers have tried to close the gap in various ways in the hope of finding a rational base for ethics rather than being forced to make a choice between some arbitrary external authority or an existential leap of faith (or lonely despair).

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"This is the same David Hume who doubted his own existence and admitted having no clue how to verify it one way or the other, right?"

It isn't that he doubted it. It's that he couldn't rationally justify it inductively. It's the same David Hume that introduced the Problem of Induction. He pointed out that we cannot rationally justify our science through induction. The "problem of induction" plagued philosophers for centuries. In order to deal with the problem, they found themselves using induction to try to solve it. You obviously can't use the problem to solve the problem. You can't justify induction by using induction.

Traditional ‘bedrock’ foundationalism said that knowledge must be justified in order to be rational, and it attempted to justify our knowledge by deriving it from an indubitable and infallible source. (Rand is clearly a foundationalist.)

Hume then argued that the attempt to ground our scientific knowledge upon sense experience leads to irrationalism. Hume pointed out that there is no ‘middle term’ that allows us to validly infer future events from past experiences, and that such inductive inferences provide only psychological, as opposed to rational, justification through custom and habit.

Kant’s attempt to salvage the rationality of science collapsed when Einstein imposed a non-Euclidean geometry and a non-Newtonian physics upon nature. Einstein described a natural world that rational beings before him had never conceived. And his descriptions were then corroborated by the results of the experiments that he conceived in order to test them.

The success of Einstein’s theory shattered all hopes of explaining the rationality of science in terms of a priori foundations. If Kant could be wrong about the a priori certainty of Newtonian Mechanics and Euclidean Geometry, then how could anyone ever claim to be a priori certain again?

Wittgenstein and the logical positivists, in particular, argued, as Hume had argued before them, that the meaning of a term is reducible to sense impressions, and that empirical verifiability is what distinguishes science from metaphysics, and sense from nonsense.

When you (Michael) state; "It is the self-evident fact of existence—that something is—and its corollaries, I am aware of it (consciousness), and of myself as distinguished from it (identity) that reside at the base of all knowledge.", you are agreeing with and relying upon the very same logical positivism that reduces everything to sense impressions.

It was in this context that induction and demarcation emerged for Popper as the two fundamental problems of epistemology.

Popper realized that the attempt to explain the rationality of science as a byproduct of its justification had failed. We cannot rationally ground science upon a priori cognition because a priori cognition is unreliable, and we cannot rationally ground science upon sense experience because inductive inference is invalid. If we want to avoid Hume’s conclusion that science is irrationally grounded in custom and habit, then we have to explain how scientific knowledge can be rational given the fact that it cannot be rationally justified.

But where Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein, and the positivists all agreed that our knowledge must be justified in order to be rational, Popper cut the Gordian knot by arguing that scientific knowledge cannot, and need not, be justified at all — and by saying that it is rational not because we have justified it, but because we can criticize it. Popper argued that any attempt to justify our knowledge must, in order to avoid infinite regress, ultimately accept the truth (or reliability) of some statement (or faculty, or person) without justification.

But the fact that the truth (or reliability) of this statement (or faculty, or person) is accepted without justification means that we attribute to it an authority that we deny to others. Thus, where Wittgenstein and the positivists appealed to experience to justify our knowledge, Popper argued that ‘the main problem of philosophy is the critical analysis of the appeal to the authority of ‘experience’—precisely that ‘experience’ which every latest discoverer of positivism is, as ever, artlessly taking for granted.

The observation statements that report our experience never entail the truth of a strictly universal statement (or theory). So universal statements (or theories) cannot be justified (or verified) by experience. But it takes only one genuine counter-example to show that a universal statement is false. So some universal statements (or theories) can be criticized (or falsified) by experience—or, at least, by the acceptance of observation statements that contradict them. Popper concluded that it is falsifiability, and not verifiability, that distinguishes empiri¬cal science from metaphysics.

And then, by pointing out that there is a logical asymmetry between universal and singular statements—so that universal statements can be falsified, but not verified; and singular statements can be verified, but not falsified—he showed that the distinction between science and metaphysics cannot coincide with the distinction between meaningful and meaningless statements, because if a statement is meaningful then its negation must be meaningful as well.

In this way, Popper argued that the growth of science is both empirical and rational. It is empirical because we test our solutions to scientific problems against our observations and experience. And it is rational, because we make use of the valid argument forms of deductive logic, especially the modus tollens, to criticize theories that contradict the observation statements that we think are true—and because we never conclude from the fact that a theory has survived our tests that it has been shown to be true.

Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on July 06, 2012:

"The validity of the senses is axiomatic. One must rely on that validity in any attempt to refute it."

Actually your statement should read; IF the validity of the senses is axiomatic, THEN one must rely on that validity in any attempt to refute it.

Almost everyone is familiar with the classical method of reasoning know as modus ponens. The well known example goes as follows:

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Few know that the progress of science no longer depends primarily upon this method, but on the less familiar form known as modus tolens, which goes like this:

(If) Socrates is a god, (then) Socrates is immortal.

Socrates is not immortal.

Therefore, Socrates is not a god.

We have two different kinds of statements, both of which are necessary ingredients of a complete causal explanation. They are (1) universal statements, i.e. hypotheses of the character of natural laws, and (2) singular statements, which apply to the specific event in question called "initial conditions". It is from universal statements in conjunction with initial conditions that we deduce the singular statement, . . . a specific or singular prediction.

The initial conditions describe what is usually called the "cause" of the event in question. . . . And the prediction describes what is usually called "effect".

To give a causal explanation of an event means to deduce a statement which describes it, using as premises of the deduction one or more universal laws, together with certain singular statements, the initial conditions.

The first criterion required for a set of statements to be admitted as a theory is that it must be internally consistent from a formal, logical point of view. In order to meet this criterion the following conditions must be satisfied. The set of "axiom" statements must be independent and not contradict one another. Also, there must be no dependent statements which contradict other dependent statements. Another condition is that none of these axiom statements may have a "built-in" contradiction (self-contradictory). When a theory satisfies these conditions, all of the "basic statements" of the theory can be deduced, in the strictly logical sense, from the axiom statements. This criterion is necessary to permit "falsification" to extend to higher level theories. By insuring that this criterion is met, we guarantee that:

If a higher level statement is true, then an immediately lower level, dependent, statement is true. (Call this "Premise 1")

We can show what this means by two steps of modus tolens. Suppose we have a simple theory with one axiom, one "middle level" statement which, for this example, we will call the "hypothesis", and only one basic statement, the "prediction". Since Premise 1 is true for this theory, we can show the relationships among the statements of the theory:

P1. If the axiom is true then the hypothesis is true.

P2. If the hypothesis is true then the prediction is true.

Suppose the prediction turns out false. Then we would say:

P3. The prediction is not true.

Argument 1

If the hypothesis is true then the prediction is true. (P2)

The prediction is not true. (P3)

Therefore, the hypothesis is not true. (modus tolens)

Argument 2

If the axiom is true then the hypothesis is true. (P1)

The hypothesis is not true. (from argument 1)

Therefore, the axiom is not true. (modus tolens)

Because this first criterion was satisfied in this simple theory, a false prediction "carried through" to prove the axiom of the theory false. If this first criterion had not been satisfied, this technique of using modus tolens could not have been used, and we would not know how a false prediction affected the theory as a whole. In more complex theories, a false prediction might show only that a combination of axioms is inconsistent in regard to their consequences, but not which of the axioms is the one which caused the trouble. Because of this, a false prediction may cause the whole theory to be falsified, or only a part of it.

Strictly deductive reasoning is "truth preserving", that is, it is such that if one starts out with "true" premises, one can only deduce "true" conclusions. Starting with a "theory" and deducing "predictions" can be stated in the form of a premise:

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

However, we cannot prove that a theory is true, but we can certainly show that a prediction is false. If the scientist tests one of these predictions and finds out that it is not true, he uses modus tolens to conclude that the theory cannot be true.

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

The prediction is not true.

Therefore, the theory is not true.

A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following four fundamental requirements. (a) the system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it. (b) The system must be independent, i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. (In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system.) These two conditions concern the axiom system as such; as regards the relation of the axiom system to the bulk of the theory, the axioms should be (c) sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized, and (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions.

In a theory thus axiomatized it is possible to investigate the mutual dependence of various parts of the system. For example, we may investigate whether a certain part of the theory is derivable from some part of the axioms. Investigations of this kind . . . have an important bearing on the problem of falsifiability. They make it clear why the falsification of a logically deduced statement may sometimes not affect the whole system but only some part of it, which may then be regarded as falsified

Science admits only theories capable of being tested by experience. If the form of a theory is such that its basic statements simply don't correspond to experience, or are otherwise not testable, then that theory does not qualify as empirically scientific. It may be some other kind of theory, but it is definitely not to be considered scientific. For a theory to be scientific it must be testable.

The third criterion c