3 ms·

Ayn Rand settled the age-old epistemology debate? I don't think so.

• javert 13y ago
  Well, there are only five reasonable ways to disagree. (1) Do you hold that concepts and principles are purely "in" the referents? (2) Do you hold that they are purely "in" man's mind? (3) Do you hold that they are "in" man's mind, but refer to properties of the referents? (Rand's conclusion) (4) Do you hold that Rand's argument and conclusion is correct, but somebody else made it earlier? (5) Do you hold that there is insufficient evidence to answer the question (which then raises questions about why you would even engage in an intellectual discussion)? For example, you could "argue" for a subjectivist view of knowledge. An actual answer along the lines of 1-5 would be useful, but stating "I don't think so" does not provide any reasoning, and thus is utterly devoid of intellectual content. You seem to be dismissing a theory without considering and responding to its evidence, which is fraudulent science. Nobody wants to see that kind of "argument," even people who nonetheless do agree with the conclusion. I do think you have the intellectual right to merely state that you disagree, but you have to say that you don't intend to defend it, or let yourself be subject to having it pointed out by someone, as I am. That is because too many people today hide behind the assumption that agreement or disagreement without evidence presented is enough to establish or disestablish truth. As I said before, that is fraudulent science.