Ayn Rand -Faith vs Reason

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Raynd said twice that one is never asked to prove negative.That is untrue,and happens in science all the time.The concept is called 'falsification'. In asserting 'there is no God" Raynd makes a positive claim and attracts the burden of proof. IE She has the obligation to falsify the existence of Gods.

Falsification is not in any way proving a negative, it is declaring events that are incompatible with the model being espoused. If data comes to light that indicates the model is not consistent with reality then you can say the model has been falsified.

For her to 'falsify' the existence of Gods would require that she discover data that is incompatible with the hypothesis - That is never going to happen because God is immensely vague, any data you uncover can be incorporated into the model ad-hoc, just like evolution is evidence of 'how creative' god is.

Rand has the obligation to necessitate the non-existence of God, that is somewhat different to falsifying the claim.

Apart from that I agree

Making a positive claim attracts the burden of proof. By asserting "there is no god" Raynd does indeed have that obligation.That it is impossible makes the claim metaphysical speculation,not an established fact. Something of which she should have been aware.Making the claim the she did, in my opinion, made her disingenuous at best,intellectually dishonest at worst. Bertrand Russell she ain't.


Is there a practical difference? Falsification proves a proposition to be false.IE Not true,proving the negative. EG The proposition that rainwater cures say lung cancer can be disproved empirically.[for all practical purposes]

I think that the proposition "it is not night" can be proved,as indeed can the proposition "it is not raining".

In formal logic,there is a common proposition: IF A NOT B


Is that not proving a negative?

However,negative existence cannot proved:EG the black swan.

I must admit to being confused,I'm not arguing the point,simply looking for clarification.Please keep ii simple lest you confuse me further and my head explodes.

[yuriythebest]

Making a positive claim attracts the burden of proof.By asserting "there is no god" Raynd does indeed have that obligation.

Correct. It's all a matter of how she phrased it. I'd have said "You can't prove a negative - for example that unicorns/fairies don't exist on any planet, but for now there is no reason to believe in them". Her "strong atheist"position, while technically pretty much sums up what most atheists think, is hard to defend.



On the one hand, she seems like an interesting character and while I disagree with many things she said (not in that particular video but overall) she would have probably been interesting to talk to.

However, when it comes to defending atheism I hate to sound pompous but I'd probably have done a better job (I have listened to almost all episodes of the atheist experience, read many books on the topic and participated in long skype debates with theists).
Or at the very least Jeff Dee/Dilahunty/Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennet all are way better than her.

[FadingW]

Speaking of Ayn Rand, I found a video series "This is John Galt speaking"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xStn_jXKo#t=1m46s

[The Skeptic]

I don't know much about her personally other than what's on Wiki, but I don't know why people had such a problem with her books. I actually rather enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and Anthem and I thought Fountainhead was a pretty good movie. Then again...I read them/watched them as works of fiction, which is what they're listed as. I didn't take them any more seriously than I did Lord of the Rings. Unlike the motherfucker who paid for a billboard along the side of highway 85 to say "Who is John Galt?" just this summer.

I don't care much for her political philosophy, and think many of the people at the ARI are a bit wacky, but I like her stories too. I appreciate the basic message of her philosophy for men to appreciate their own value, and not succumb to the masses, and to also be rational. I think she took it to extremes largely because of her roots in soviet Russia. I think her polarizing way of writing and dismissal of other philosophers, and her outright attacks on Kant which she took too far, really ticks people off. Plus, her books have, to quote Lisa Simpson, become the "bible of right wing losers".

[thesummerqueen]

Plus, her books have, to quote Lisa Simpson, become the "bible of right wing losers".

Rarely is it the case that a written work causes the problem - more often it is the fucktarded readers.

[Edwardo Piet]

You could say that about the Bible.

But if there were never any bibles to be read there wouldn't have been any Judaism, Christianity, and probably no Islam too (or at least, it wouldn't have been the same without Judaism and Christianity). There wouldn't have been any (religious) jews or christians and probably no muslims either.

[thesummerqueen]

You could say it about Lewis Carroll as well. I'm just saying it's the interpreters who usually cause all the havoc.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's true that it's possible to interpret such books in a harmless way...

...but it's also true that if such things weren't there to interpret, there would be no possibility of a harmful interpretation of it.

Just as it's true that there can be nuclear arms without nuclear war...

...but it's also true that if there were never any nuclear arms, nuclear war would be impossible.

It's true that weapons (including the unarmed weapons of the human body) don't kill people, people kill people...

...but it's also true that there can be no people killing people without weapons (if you include the unarmed weapons of the human body).

[thesummerqueen]

Understanding you're playing Devil's Advocate, I don't believe that something that has the potential to be a useful tool should be allowed to pass away simply because someone might abuse it. Rather, the abuser should be punished.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't suggest that books like the Bible should be discarded. I rather suggested that it would have been better if they had never existed.

Hey, I don't wish for an apocalypse but I do think that on the whole things would be better if life never existed (because I think the pain in the world far outweighs the pleasure).