A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, May 30, 2008 Check Your Premises By Diana Hsieh @ 12:16 AM In a lengthy post entitled Dissecting Epistemology, Monica challenges the objectivity of many of our supposedly scientific beliefs about the world. She writes, Apart from the obvious idea that much of science is ideologically driven, many scientists - irrespective of any underlying, driving ideology - have deliberately cooked data and managed to get it published in scientific journals for no other reason than the fact that they are second-handed and they want to be right. And of course, scientific history is also rife with examples of new ideas taking time to become established in the mainstream due to a lack of objectivity in the scientific community. Just take that "quacky" idea that bacteria might cause ulcers!! We scientists "know" that bacteria can't inhabit stomach acid!? Right?? Most commonly of all, in my opinion, is not intellectual dishonesty but the fact that shoddy science is done all the time and people just fail to fully and objectively evaluate that research. Sometimes, those claims then end up becoming part of the "objective scientific consensus" that persists for 50 years. To say, "I've not studied the issue, so I just don't know," is often the most objective, the most self-aware, and the most honest reply possible to an inquiry. Sometimes, it's also the hardest reply. In my judgment, even though I'm an ardent advocate of evolutionary theory, Ayn Rand exhibited exactly that kind of objectivity in her statement on evolution in her essay "The Missing Link" in Philosophy: Who Needs It. She wrote, "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent." I've seen that statement harshly criticized in some corners of the internet, as if Ayn Rand were obliged to swallow the standard scientific account of man's origins -- without any study of the facts of the matter. That's completely wrong: it's a demand to accept a theory on faith, just because it's endorsed by a sufficiently large number of supposed authorities. Ayn Rand refused to be that kind of epistemic second-hander. Instead, she formed her own judgments based on her actual knowledge. As a result of that method, she effectively challenged two millennia of altruism in ethics. That's the kind of insight that scrupulous objectivity -- not to mention a large helping genius -- makes possible. Labels: Epistemology, Science Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, May 30, 2008 at 7:24:42 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Sam Nietzsche often questioned how natural selection occured(he didn't accept Darwin's position), as well as two thousand millenia of altruism. Obviously they went about it in different ways and drew entirely different conclusions; but it would be interesting to compare Rand and Nietzsche in this regard since they seem to be the only philosophers I can think of to do this. So....have there been other philosophers to question either how evolution occurs, while still being an atheist, or altruism?
	Friday, May 30, 2008 at 7:42:22 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Diana Hsieh E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog Sam -- I think you've missed my whole point. Ayn Rand wasn't questioning evolution. She had no opinion on it because she hadn't studied it.
	Friday, May 30, 2008 at 7:46:56 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Jeff Montgomery E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com There are lots of great reasons to proclaim your ignorance when appropriate :). Some I can think of: 1. If it's the truth. 2. So people know when you *really* know something (cry wolf effect). 3. Knowing when you *don't* know something, or exactly in what respect you *do* know it, are important aspects of knowledge itself. 4. Working with people who don't do this in a practical situation is difficult; they neither know enough to really be effective, nor will they relinquish control to someone who does. 5. You'll have fewer people asking you about things you don't know anything about.
	Friday, May 30, 2008 at 22:46:10 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Dan G. E-mail: gibsondj(at)gmail.com Ones knowledge to strength of opinion ratio should not be too low lest he become a faith-based zealot; or too high, and be a moral coward.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 8 plus 9 equals 667896056389845294