rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) (02/03/90)
Distribution:
Organization: University of Chicago
Keywords: Objectivism, science, SPO
Since the arguments for placing *.philosophy.objectivism in the sci.*
hierarchy were posted sometime ago and seem to have expired at some sites or
just missed the attention of some people, I offer this summary, along with a
summary of the various counterarguments.
The argument is over 3 questions.
1) Is philosophy a science?
2) Is Objectivism a philosophy?
3) Does philosophy belong in the sci hierarchy?
1) Is philosophy a science?
The arguments rests on a definition of science. The definition offered by sci
proponents involves four characteristics.
genus:
a) an organized body of knowledge
differentia:
b) based on the facts of reality (i.e. experience)
which differentiates it from religion, whose main basis is the
acceptance of ideas on faith
c) which deals with fundamental facts
which differentiates it from model-airplane builing and other
fields which study very narrow bodies of facts
d) showing the operation of fundamental laws and causal principles
meaning that the purpose is not just the collection and
collation of facts, but their explanation according to
fundamental principles
The definition put forward by the anti-sci arguers is something roughly like
this:
genus:
a) an organized body of knowledge
differentia:
b) based on quantifiable experimental data
c) yielding experimentally testable (or "falsifiable") laws
The most notable difference is the added criteria of quantifiability of the
data and the use of the experimental method. The first definition merely said
that a science is based on observable facts, but did not specify that these
facts had to be strictly quantifiable or gained and tested through a specific
experimental method.
The sci proponents have argued that these added criteria are non-essential, and
are not possessed by several sciences, such as economics and psychology, but
that all sciences possess the characteristics in the first definition. The sci
opponents have not offered a counter-argument to this. Nor would a reading of
the relevant newsgroups (e.g. sci.econ) offer them any basis for such an
argument.
On this basis, the sci proponents have argued that philosophy fits under the
definition of "science"--it is an organized body of knowledge, dealing with
the most fundamental facts of reality and of human existence, and is concerned
with the discovery of general laws and principles.
The counterarguments have been varied.
There are those who have argued that some fields like model-airplane building
and presumably the study of aquaria are also organized bodies of knowledge
but are not sciences. True enough, but the pro-sci definition of science
includes more than that, specifically the argument about the fundamentality of
the facts studied. Since the study of aquaria is a very narrow field, it is
not fundamntal enough to be a science, even though it may be approached with a
similar method. There has, however, been no argument to show that philosophy
is not a broad enough field. Nor could there be, since philosophy is really
_the_ broadest field--it is concerned with the whole of reality.
There have been those who have argued that philosophy is not based on facts
but is instead based on premises which must be accepted on faith. In response,
I note simply that a field in which the _only_ argument offered is "accept this
on faith" is not philosophy, but religion. It is the nature of a philosophy to
give reasons and detailed justifications based in some kind of facts which are
considered to be accessible to the reader. Any field which is based simply on
"accept this on faith" or "you can't know, so just believe me" is _ipso_facto_
not philosophy. (Note: This does not preclude a _philosophical_defense_ of
religion.)
There have been those who have argued that philosophy is not based on
experimental method. See above.
There are those who have argued that, under this definition, astrology would
count as a science. I disagree. Astrology studies the effect of the
apparent motion of heavenly bodies upon human affairs. Since there is no
demonstrable evidence of any such effect, the whole field is invalid--it has
no legitimate subject matter. Until someone can come up with a conclusive
demonstration that nothing exists, I will assume that the subject matter of
philosophy does, in fact, exist.
There are those who have argued that philosophy belongs with the arts. I find
this particularly ironic, since Ayn Rand is often criticized for mixing
philosophy and literature. However, philosophy is quite different than the
arts. Although they often deal with the same subject matter (Life, the
Universe and Everything), they do so in a vastly different manner. Compare
Aristotle to Sophocles, or Fielding to Kant, or Rand's novel _We The Living_
with the _Intro._to_Obj._Epistemology.
2) Is Objectivism a philosophy?
The evidence for this claim is in the writings of Ayn Rand. Her writings
dealt with such issues as the law of cause and effect, the nature of conscious-
ness, the theory of concepts, the relationship between mind and body, the
foundations of ethics, the nature of moral principles, the proper role of
government, and the nature of art. These are philosophical issues. Ayn Rand's
positions on such issues are comprehensive and distinctive enough to
constitute a separate and complete philosophy.
The only objections to this have been that Rand's writings consist of
nothing but assertions without evidence, and that Objectivism is a mask for
a proto-fascist political agenda. Both arguments can be safely dismissed
without comment, as they have absolutely no basis in fact.
3) Does philosophy belong is sci.*?
The sci proponents have argued that, since sci is not limited only to the
physical and experimental sciences, but includes other sciences of the same
sort as philosophy, the "human sciences" as I have called them, then philosophy
ought to be in sci.
Some have argued that sci only contains experimental sciences. Psychology,
economics and education have been pointed out as counterexamples. It has also
been noted that (with the exception of talk.phil.misc) all of the subjects in
talk are very different from philosophy.
Some have argued that the volume and flamage on this newsgroup qualify it for
talk. First, I see no reason why volume alone should qualify a subject for
talk. What if a lot of people want to discuss chemistry? Second, the expected
volume and flamage cannot be guaged by the new.groups discussion alone. I have
noticed that volume and flamage (especially the flamage) are artificially high
on news.groups, as opposed to the actual groups themselves. One might also be
given to wonder where one _doesn't_ find flames on usenet. Read sci.econ
lately?
This concludes the main arguments. There have also been three meta-arguments.
a) Who cares?
It does make a difference where *PO is put, and most of us can agree on that,
one way or another. The main reason it makes a difference is Truth and
Justice (one might also include the American Way). Is philosophy a science
(Truth) and how should it be treated hierarchy-placement-wise (Justice)?
b) You're all a bunch of jerks.
This is only half right. :-)
c) You believe in reason, so you have to justify your conclusions. I don't
believe in reason, so I don't have to justify mine.
And _I'm_ accused of being dogmatic!
This concludes all of the arguments for and against sci, and I consider them to
be conclusive in favor of SCI.philosophy.objectivism. You are free not to
regard them as conclusive, but I would appreciate your offering arguments for
such a conclusion.
If I have left any arguments out, I am confident I will be flamed for it.
-Robert
PS: While I have found many postings against SPO to be blatantly
irrational, I would like to explicitly say that there have been some posters
who were reasonable, though I found their arguments unconvincing. Gene
Spafford and Brad Templeton are the only ones whom I can name off-hand. The
others presumably know who they are.
--
Robert Tracinski | "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is
<rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu> | a contradiction in terms: before it could
Student of Philosophy | identify itself as consciousness, it had to be
University of Chicago | conscious of something."-Ayn Rand,_Atlas_Shrugged_chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/05/90)
According to rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski): >The argument is over 3 questions. > 1) Is philosophy a science? > 2) Is Objectivism a philosophy? > 3) Does philosophy belong in the sci hierarchy? Actually, there is a fourth: 4) Do controversial topics that tend to generate more heat than light belong in talk? This fourth question is the only one I feel confident in answering: "Yes." -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (02/06/90)
Sigh! Despite the tremendous cachet involved in having one's favorite group accepted in the "sci" heirarchy, all arguments (mine included, at length and ad nauseum) about whether objectivism is a science are beside the point. The only question of relevance is (following the information about newsgroup subscription provided by Peter da Silva) whether sites which subscribe to newsgroups by toplevel name to simplify the communications software will be well served by having *.philosophy.objectivism included in the "sci" heirarchy, a heirarchy (however much since abused) established for the purpose of incorporating in one easy-to-subscribe-to place those discussions which could possibly be of value to an entity providing a host computer in terms of economic benefit equal to the cost of subscription. I really doubt that a newsgroup, founded to allow a group of posters unwelcome where they currently post a new home, and demonstrably (by recent postings) unwilling to entertain unfriendly contrary opinions, qualifies to meet this subscription criterion. Could we get on with the sci.philosophy.objectivism vote? Had the net a version of Robert's Rules of Order (highly desirable IMN-HO), this could be considered a calling of the question. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan) xanthian@ads.com - expiring soon; please use Well address for replies. Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-