Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!rwt1 From: rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Arguments for SCI.philosophy.objectivism Summary: Objectivism newsgroup should go in sci. Message-ID: <7444@tank.uchicago.edu> Date: 3 Feb 90 07:44:39 GMT Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 174 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 | 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_