Category: Rand vs.

Alan Greenspan 1.5A, parts I & II

Alan Greenspan 1.5A, parts I & II

In his famous essay “Gold and Economic Freedom”, Alan Greenspan presents a gold based banking system.i The way currency is created conflicts with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Part I: The banks’ creation of currency. Part II: The conflict with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Part I:

Greenspan wrote: “… a logical extension… is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into gold… A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy”ii.

Many people would not realize what Greenspan was talking about. And he doesn’t explain it. Greenspan is using a meaning of “deposit” most people don’t know, referring to a bank’s debt. Obviously, a customer’s deposit of gold wouldn’t convert to or substitute for gold.

This is one example of the procedure he described, according to his words:

Step 1: Extend Credit: The banker agrees to loan 900 gold oz to a Borrower, who will spend it on production requirements.

Step 2: Create a Deposit: The banker writes “900 gold oz” in the debt column of the bank ledger. The banker has “created” the bank’s deposit, without a customer deposit or any gold. He wrote down a debt the bank doesn’t owe.

Step 3: Create Bank Notes: The bank notes say the bank owes 900 gold oz, when the bank notes are redeemed. The bank notes document the the banks’ liability in the debt column, not gold. There isn’t any gold yet.

Step 4: Substitute Bank Notes for Gold: Instead of loaning gold to the Business, the bank substitutes the bank notes. The bank retains the loan agreement, a claim for future payments of 900 gold oz plus interest.

Step 5: Convert Deposit into Gold: The value of the loan, 900 gold oz plus interest, is recorded in the asset column next to the banks’ deposit in the debit column.

The result of the process is that the banker, “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…iii”.

The process is essentially the same with or without considering reserves.

Greenspan’s “banking system based on gold” prints money that is not backed by gold. They artificially “create” deposits and loan the result, paper money secured by paper claims; which he says “… enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…iv”.

What Greenspan describes is current banking practice. Greenspan was reassuring bankers that the gold standard wouldn’t change their procedures.

Part II: Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy.

  1. Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon
  2. Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

II.1:Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon

Many people incorrectly think banks loan part of the customer’s deposit and keep part as a reserve. For example, Nathaniel Brandon, a psychologist writing in the same book as Greenspan’s essay, published by Ayn Rand,

“… Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves.”v

Mr. Greenspan, a trained economist, is clear that is not the case,

“This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…vi”. “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…vii”. Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Many people think a gold standard will regulate the supply of money. For Mr. Brandon, the requirements of production must be within how much gold already exists,

“On a gold standard… the supply of money and credit needed to finance business ventures is determined by objective economic factors… the principles governing money supply…viii”

In Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the “objective” economic factor in this case would be the presence or absence of the physical gold.

Mr. Greenspan says gold based banks do the opposite, as they

“create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy.”ix Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

For Mr. Brandon, the limited supply of gold money tells banks to slow down business activity:

“… in response to the shrinking availability of money… funds are more difficult to obtain… curtailment and contraction of business investment.x ”

For Mr. Greenspan, slow business activity tells banks to limit the supply of money,

“But when business ventures financed by bank loans are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon… curtail new lending… restrict financing…xi ” Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Once Greenspan is deciphered, the meaning is highly controversial for people who think a laissez faire gold economy automatically does the right thing; that is – the amount of gold available is what determines “the production requirements of the economy”; that people shouldn’t decide production requirements and create currency to match. The idea that money has to be deliberately manipulated to make the economy work is offensive to them. Many people who want a gold standard, want it because they think it prevents human interference with the natural order of things.

Those people are strongly represented in the fan base for Ayn Rand. Greenspan didn’t want to offend them. But he also had to reassure bankers that Objectivism was on their side. So he used technical terminology that regular folks wouldn’t recognize and simply left out any explanation of actual practices.

II.2: Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

Greenspan advocates “created bank notes” generated by extending credit, based on debt.

This contradicts Rand, who wrote,

“The most disastrous loss… is the loss of the concept that money stands for existing, but unconsumed goods.”xii

Rand disapproves of

“…paper money which is used as a claim check on actually existing goods- but that money is not backed by any goods, it is not backed by gold, it is backed by nothing. It is a promissory note issued to you in exchange for your goods to be paid by you… out of your future production.xiii” “… this dear readers is the cause, the pattern, and the outcome of inflation.xiv”

Rand denigrates what Greenspan advocates. Bank notes are also called promissory notes. The ones the Borrower spends are created out of nothing, cost the banker nothing and are backed by nothing except the future production of the market, which must generate enough income for the Borrower to pay the loan. Yet these promissory notes are in the marketplace competing with actual gold. It is the definition of inflation in a gold economy.

Rand’s philosophy requires money to represent savings from past production. Money based on future production is a major violation. Rand and Greenspan contradict each other.

Rand was wrong when she said,

“Only one institution can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade in rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.”xv

Greenspan asserts the bank based on gold can do the same thing. Merchants and communities don’t have knowledge of, or consent to, the risk these bank notes represent. Greenspan contradicts Rand.

Ayn Rand authorized the publication of Greenspan’s contradictory essay in her magazine and book as appropriate for her economic philosophy; therefore, Ayn Rand contradicts herself.

iGold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

iiiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ivPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

vPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiiPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ixPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiv128 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xv129 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

Rand vs Hume 1.3

In the commonly accepted language of logic, “certain” refers to the conclusions we reach using deductive logic. For example, once the rules of an arithmetic are decided on, 2 + 2 = 4 every time we do it; i.e., it is “certain”. In the 17th century, David Hume found that inductive logic cannot be certain; we cannot know the sun will rise tomorrow, just because it came up yesterday. Hume’s knowledge of the world through inductive logic is “probable”. This is commonly called, “the Problem of Induction”.

Rand has written a straw man on this topic, which she ascribes to David Hume, “Don’t be so sure, nobody can be certain of anything.”i

This essay covers the second sentence of Rand’s attempted refutation, “The pronouncement means no knowledge of any kind is possible to man; i.e., that man is not conscious.”

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is based on tabula rasa , the idea that sensory data makes a one-to-one impression of reality in our minds. “Conscious” means to be aware of your senses. By using the single law of her logic, A = A, we recognize similarities in the things we observe. That is “knowledge”.

For Rand, inductive logic and deductive logic are both the same logic of A = A, just working in different directions. Once we have a concept built from observation (inductive), we may or may not assign new observations to that concept (deductive).

Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology applies these ideas to every human’s mind. Since we all observe the same reality and logic is consistent, all our mental concepts are the same. People who claim to disagree with Rand’s concepts must be ignorant or telling deliberate lies.

Hume’s finding that deductive knowledge and inductive knowledge are separate and distinct; and that knowledge gained through observations and inductive logic is “probably” right and possibly wrong, contradicts every aspect of Rand’s philosophy. If Hume is right, Rand’s “objective” philosophy is just her personal interpretation of her sensory impressions. Her concepts are just “probable”. People can honestly disagree with her without being evil.

So, Rand uses her logic of “non-contradictory identification”. If her philosophy, considering inductive reasoning as certain, leads to her definition of knowledge; then Hume’s philosophy must lead to no knowledge at all. If Rand is “conscious” using her philosophy, Hume’s philosophy must lead to unconsciousness. Since those things are not possible, Hume must be an evil person spreading deliberate lies.

More footnotes are needed!

i paragraph 10, Chapter 2, Philosophical Detection; Philosophy Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand

Alan Greenspan 1.3 (Rand vs Greenspan)

Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand contradict each other when explaining commodity based currencies.

Greenspan starts by describing money. “… Durable…In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium…”i “More importantly, the commodity… must be a luxury… Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… The term “luxury” implies scarcity and high unit value.”ii

Rand starts by describing the need of the individual for food to survive and the importance of savings. “You need the saved harvest of your good years to carry you through the bad ones; you need your saved seed to expand your production”iii. Rand’s story is about coping with productive abundance. “Grain and foodstuffs are perishable and cannot be kept long”iv, however “you don’t have to expand your storage, you can trade your grain for a commodity which will keep longer and which you can trade for food when you want it.”v.

In Rand’s example, the disposition of abundant food was the necessary cause of the monetary system. Increased production is funded by surplus. The goal is for people to have food to eat, in accordance with a person’s “ultimate value… the (person’s) life”vi.

In Greenspan’s example, the institution of a monetary system is a given. The material circumstances are irrelevant except for how they serve the requirements of the economy. If food has high unit value, hungry people are not to eat the food, but use it as money. Scarcity creates wealth. The goal is an efficient economic system. Feeding hungry people is not a factor.

Greenspan and Rand disagree on the fundamental purpose of an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the function of food in an economy. Greenspan and Rand disagree on the value of human life.

iPg 96 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iiPg 97 Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal Signet, New American Library

iii pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

iv pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

v pg 126 and 127, Egalitarianism and Inflation, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, The Penguin Group

vi Pg 17, Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library

Rand vs Einstein 1.2

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Rand’s philosophy says on Pg 152, “Man’s knowledge is acquired by… the application of logic to experience… Hence the method man must follow… The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

This disagrees with Albert Einstein who said, “There is no logical path leading to [the highly universal laws of science]. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.”

Rand disagrees with Einstein.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for Einsteins statement.

Rand vs S. I. Hayakawa

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the position of the other side.

Defining the words “intensional” and “extensional” Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action says: “The intensional is the map, the extensional is the territory…. The map is not the territory. The word is not the thing… “ (pg. 19 and 20). Some things only have a definition and no concrete extensional existence, such as… “the mathematical point which has a position but occupies no space and the mathematical circle which is a closed figure in which all points are equidistant from the center… Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular…” (pg 122)

Compared to Rand/Piekoff, Objectivist Epistemology: “By extension of a concept, the theory’s advocates mean the concretes subsumed under that concept.”

When Rand says “concretes subsumed” she means the concrete things observed in the real world which inspired the concept in the first place (pg 21). However, since mathematical points and circles have no concrete extension, concretes cannot be “subsumed” and cannot be the extensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Therefore, she misrepresents the other side.

And then she says, “by the intension of a concept, they mean those characteristics of the concretes which are stated in the concepts definition…” (pg. 141) However, since geometric points and circles have no concrete characteristics in their definitions, that cannot be the intensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Again, she misrepresents the other side.

The nature of the misrepresentation is that her premise of concretes is assumed to be a premise the other side shares when it does not.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979 Ch. 2, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S I Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harvest edition, Harcourt Brace & Co, 1992

 

Rand vs David Hume 1.1

Ayn Rand misrepresents Hume, from “Philosophy Who Needs It?[1] Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection, paragraph 10”:

The story so far: According to Hume and deductive logic, inductive logic is uncertain, or “probable” [2]. Because Rand’s epistemology of knowledge and certain truth is, essentially, inductive logic[3]; Hume and deductive logic directly contradict Rand. Drama ensues.

First sentence: “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.[4]’”

In the previous chapter, Rand says we “got this from Hume and many, many others”[5]. Despite the quotation marks, she is the actual author. It is a false, incorrect paraphrase of Hume’s Problem of Induction plus an anachronistic paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.

A) “Nobody can be certain of anything.”

  1. “… certain…” Certain refers to a conclusion proven with deductive logic, e.g. 2+2=4 is certain. Certain also means a psychological commitment to a belief, e.g. “I am certain I parked right here!” That is a different topic.
  2. “…Nobody can be certain…” If deductive logic is certain, then people using deductive logic can be certain. Therefore, Rand’s phrase is a) not logical and b) not a paraphrase of Hume.
  3. “Nobody can be certain of anything.” Rand’s phrase is reminiscent of the adolescent emotional hyperbole “you never let me do anything!” and is of similar nature; as though Hume said, “Inductive logic is probable”; to which Rand replied, “You’re saying nobody can be certain of anything!” and then wrote down her own words and said they came from him. Rand’s paraphrase is false.
  4. If Rand is referring to Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory and/or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory, then her paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

B) “Don’t be so sure…”

  1. This is an semi-accurate paraphrase of Bertrand Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain about anything[6]”. The topic is our psychological certainty, which we can choose  to be absolute about. Rand leaves out the “feel” part.
  2. This phrase is not about inductive logic. The uncertainty of inductive logic is not a choice; if that were the topic, the correct word would be “can’t”- “Can’t be so sure”.
  3. Russell said this after Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and centuries after Hume, therefore Rand’s paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

Rand presents her straw man as though originating with Hume when it does not. Rand’s straw man misrepresents the issues Hume was concerned with. Rand’s straw man  is false, incorrect emotional hyperbole.

 

 

[1] Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[3] Rand For the New Intellectual page 29 Signet, New American Library, 1957

[4] Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 36 Mentor, New American Library, 1979

[5] Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 1 Philosophy Who Needs It? p. 4 Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[6]https://books.google.com/books?id=dVBpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=do+not+feel+absolutely+certain+of+anything+Russell&source

Rand vs Richard Dawkins

One difference between Ayn Rand’s selfishness economics and Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene economics is Dawkins’ open acknowledgment of cannibalism.

Dawkins says, “We might suppose intuitively that the runt himself should go on struggling to the last, but the theory does not necessarily predict this… he should give up and preferably let himself be eaten by his litter-mates or his parents.[1]” “Indeed it may pay (the mother) to feed (the runt) to his brothers and sisters, or to eat him herself, and use him to make milk.[2]”

As Dawkins points out, the logical extension of the selfish gene theory is cannibalism; therefore, application of the selfish gene theory to economics would result in an economic system we could call cannibalistic.

For example, the fad economic concept of “lions and gazelles” has a cannibalistic subtext. Supposedly, some among us in the market place are “gazelles” being chased by others of us who are “lions”. In the fable as promulgated by Thomas Friedman, the daily result is infinitely faster lions chasing infinitely faster gazelles[3]. In the version as expressed by Dennis Miller[4], gazelles are eaten by lions.

Abstracting people into make-believe animals is not as horrifying as saying that some people, calling themselves lions, prey on their own kind causing death, starvation and deprivation through economic ruin.

Rand says: “No man or group may initiate the use of force against others.[5]” Rand gives a clear injunction against coercive violence in business dealings. Her injunction by extension prohibits predatory cannibalism. Her invective against leeches, moochers and parasites in altruistic economic systems are anti-cannibal. She calls altruism moral cannibalism, and it seems to be an insult[6].

However, Rand’s restriction of the government to retaliatory action in her laissez-faire system[7] would mean there would be no regulatory monitoring to ensure consent or prevent deception.  She is against any “laws to protect the weak, the uninformed, the unsuspecting and the gullible” (pg. 183,  Philosophy: Who needs it) from the predatory among us.

 

[1] The selfish gene pg 140

[2]The Selfish Gene, pg. 134

[3] Lexus and Olive Tree, what page?

[4] on You Tube

[5] What is capitalism pg 19

[6] The objectivist ethics, pg 30, The Virtue of Selfishness

[7] What is capitalism pg 19

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1.1a

Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

“… the disastrous, paralyzing, stultifying consequences are the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion… As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they ‘kinda knew’ the meaning of the concept ‘number’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Pg 66 and 67).

Rand accuses Russell of perpetrating something. “Perpetrate” means to commit a crime or violent act. That is not what Bertrand Russell did. Rand presents the false premise that Russell’s work in mathematics and logic was foisted on an uneducated public instead of being evaluated by mathematicians. That is not true. What Rand calls an example of the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion is cited by many as one of the foundations of modern mathematics – Russell’s Paradox.

Rand cannot disprove Russell’s logic, so she resorts to ad hominem attack. Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source on Russell, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

Rand contradicts herself 1.7 (Rand vs Science 1.8)

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents falsification with an inconsistent argument.

Falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects the Positivist process of falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Yet, on Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”.

The argument against falsification is inconsistent with her general point. If she knows any concept then she knows what is the contrary; just as the Positivist knows what evidence will contradict a theory’s prediction. The argument is inconsistent with her example of the table, where non-tables don’t have to be specifically identified in impossible circumstances.

Rand’s argument is inconsistent. Rand contradicts herself.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.7

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the Positivist practice of falsification. Rand’s argument against falsification is illogical and false.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates propositions by trying to identify and observe evidence of corroboration and contradiction. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, saying it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

A) To say a contradictory circumstance is impossible is to say the proposition is true before it is tested. That argument is not logical.

B) The Positivist process of falsification is to identify contradictory evidence which is possible to be observed. If impossible circumstances were knowingly invented, there would be no need (or funding) to try to observe it. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.6

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ )

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge”, describing falsification as “For instance, the proposition ‘Cats give birth only to kittens’ is empirically falsifiable because one can invent experiences that would refute it, such as the spectacle of tiny elephants emerging from a cat’s womb.” and “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

Rand’s argument relies on misrepresentation and emotionalism. It is not necessary to invent specific comical tiny elephants. A Positivist would say the proposition “Cats give birth only to kittens” is false if we see something else happen. Nothing gets invented.

Rand, herself, uses this same process on Pg. 77, where Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts, using as an example: “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table – is every other kind of existent”. If someone tells us there is a table, we know the statement is false if we see something else. Nothing gets invented.

Since Positivism does not require the invention of a set of impossibilities, Rand misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand contradicts herself 1.6 (Rand vs Science 1.5)

By disagreeing with Positivist philosophy, Rand’s philosophy disagrees with itself.

Rand’s logical process identifies statements as being true or false by first observing the world around us, then identifying what we observe as being either contradictory or non-contradictory to the statement.

On Pg. 77, Rand identifies the contrary of any concept as being all other concepts we observe – “the contrary of the concept “table” – a non-table- is every other kind of existent”. And on Pg 152, “In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. The method is logic-‘the art of non-contradictory identification’.”

The Positivist process of falsification evaluates statements by trying to identify and observe contrary evidence. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) Falsified is the same as contradicted. The process of observation, evaluation and classification are the same for both Positivist and Objectivist.

But Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, Pg 159 and 160, calling it an “inversion” and a “way of invalidating all of human knowledge.”

If Positivist falsification by observation is incorrect, then Rand’s observation of contradiction must be incorrect.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs. Science 1.3

 

Rand’s argument against Positivism is false.

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, saying on pg. 159 that falsification is to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ , The Positivist process of falsification evaluates theories by how well they predict what we then observe. If what we observe contradicts the prediction then the theory is falsified.

A) Since what we observe is a fact of experience, facts of experience are not being evaded. Rand’s argument is false.

B) Since the observed facts will be used to confirm or contradict the proposition, facts are not being contradicted by the proposition. Cart before the horse. Rand’s argument is false.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Rand vs Science 1.1

Rand uses a false argument to disagree with modern scientific methods.

Rand, For the New Intellectual, Pg 34-35: The scientist was offered the combined neo-mystic Witch-doctory and Attila-ism of the Logical Positivists. They assured him that… …the task of thoretical science is the manipulation of symbols, and scientists are the special elite whose symbols have the magic power of making reality conform to their will (“matter is that which fits mathematical equations”)…

Stephen Hawking The Universe in a Nutshell Pg. 31: .. According to (the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others), scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make… and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test. On the other hand, if observations disagree with the predictions, one has to… discard… the theory.

Rand misrepresents Positivism as bending reality to fit the math, while Hawking states observations are the criteria by which the math is judged. Rand’s argument is false.

Rand suggests scientists believe their symbols have magical powers. Contemporary scientists do not believe that. Rand’s argument is emotional and not rational.

Hawking cites Karl Popper, a member of the Vienna School which developed Positivism. Rand quotes herself to define Positivism; but does not say so, which makes a false impression she is quoting an actual Positivist. Rand’s argument is sophistry.

While Popper’s version of Positivism is not in all ways like Logical Positivism, the issues addressed here and cited by Rand are the same.

Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, Signet Book, New American Library, 1961

Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, Bantam Books, Random House, 2001

 

Rand vs unemployment 1.1

Rand states profitable businesses require people to be unemployed, yet applying for jobs: “that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job – that if only one applicant existed … the business concern would have to close its doors”[1].

On a national level, what Rand is talking about is the supposed need for an economy to maintain unemployment rates around 6 percent. One reason businesses close their doors is that banks stop investing when national unemployment gets too low.

On the other hand, Rand also says “is a man a sovereign individual who owns his… work…? Or is he the property of the… tribe… that may… control his work…?[2]” and “a man has the right to support his life by his own work… the right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him”[3]  and “no man’s rights may be left at the mercy of the unilateral decision, the arbitrary choice… of another man.[4]”

If unemployment is necessary for businesses to be profitable, the businesses should pay for unemployment.

Rand’s tribe of investors prevents employment. Businesses want to hire, people want to work, but the investment community decided otherwise. Therefore, unemployment should be compensated for by those who cause it and profit by it.

 

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, The conflicts of men’s interests Pg. 56

[2] Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, What is capitalism? Pg 18

[3] Virtue of Selfishness, Man’s rights. Pg 97

[4] The virtue of selfishness, The nature of government Pg 111

Rand vs Hume 1.2

Ayn Rand vs. David Hume 1.2 (special guest star- Bertrand Russell)

The story so far: Rand is attempting to debunk Hume’s Problem of Induction. In the first sentence she created a straw man, a purported paraphrase of Hume (analyzed in previous post). In the second sentence of the paragraph, Rand tries to refute her straw man.[1]

Sentence #1, her straw man:     “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.’”

Sentence #2, her refutation:       “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself; therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything.”

  • “Bertrand Russell’s gibberish…” Rand is referring to Nobel Prize Winner Bertrand Russell and Russell’s Paradox- considered by many to be one of the foundations of Modern Mathematics, Set Theory and Logic[2]. Rand sums up his work as “gibberish”; but provides no logical or mathematical refutation, missing out on a Nobel Prize.
  • “…to the contrary notwithstanding, that pronouncement includes itself…”. Russell’s Paradox agrees that “nobody can be certain of anything” includes itself. Self-inclusive statements are what Russell’s Paradox is about. Rand’s claim of contradiction is false.
  • “…therefore one cannot be sure one cannot be sure of anything”. Rand arrives at Russell’s Paradox but, rather than recognizing an axiom of logic, she thinks she can use it to disprove the first sentence.
  • Rand defeats her own position by ignoring Russell’s Paradox. For if by her logic the first sentence means that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure, then the sentence also means Rand cannot be sure that one cannot be sure one cannot be sure. Rand demonstrates that we can’t use the self-inclusive statement in a logical structure without contradiction. Therefore, Rand corroborates Russell’s Paradox which she just called “gibberish”. She is wrong twice with the same words.

Rand fails to refute her own straw man and fails to rebut Hume.

 

[1] Ayn Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosphical Detection, paragraph 10 pg 16 Signet Penguin Books

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

Rand vs David Hume 1.4

A phrase by phrase analysis of the final sentence of paragraph 10, Chapter 2: “Philosophical Detection” from “Philosophy Who Needs It?” by Ayn Randi.

The story so far: Rand has been trying to refute David Hume, based on the following straw man: ‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.’ ‘Don’t be so sure’ refers to the choice of psychological uncertainty and ‘nobody can be certain of anything’ refers to the absolute uncertainty of inductive logic, per Hume.

Final sentence: “Furthermore, if one tried to accept that catch phrase, one would find that its second part contradicts its first: if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases- since it cannot be refuted, and he can claim he is not certain he is certain (which is the purpose of that notion)ii.”

Phrase by phrase analysis:

“its second part contradicts its first:”

  • Rand asserts the general premise “nobody can be certain” regarding logical uncertainty is contradictory to the personal imperative “don’t be so sure” regarding psychological uncertainty, but no evidence will be presented. The rest of her sentence following the colon is a different topic.

“if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases”

  • Rand’s assertion is irrational and grammatically flawed. “If nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of nothing” would be correct.

“certain of everything he pleases”

  • “Certain of everything he pleases” refers to the object of certainty, “Don’t be so sure” refers to the subjective attitude, while “nobody can be certain” refers to whether certainty itself is logically possible. Rand is confusing apples, oranges and grapefruit.
  • This does not explain how “nobody can be certain” could contradict “ don’t be so sure”. Rand merely replaces “don’t be so sure” with “certain of everything he pleases” even though the new phrase is about a completely different thing.

“- since it cannot be refuted,”

  • Rand asserts lack of certainty means “everything” cannot be refuted. Since Hume’s inductive uncertainty allows for refutation within deductive logic, Rand’s statement is false.
  • Since the modern scientific method of refutation through falsification is allowed by Hume’s inductive uncertainty, Rand’s statement is false.
  • Rand is not explaining how “don’t be so sure” could be contradicted by “nobody can be certain”. Instead, she is trying to justify her new phrase, off on a tangent.

“and he can claim he is not certain he is certain”.

  • Rand asserts people can claim to be uncertain of their certainty as proof they are certain. That is illogical. There is no explanation of how that would succeed or be expected to.
  • By using “claim”, an imputation of dishonesty is leveled.
  • Still nothing related to how the uncertainty of inductive logic could contradict emotional uncertainty.

“(which is the purpose of that notion).”

  • Her parenthetical aside accuses everybody “claiming” uncertainty of creating her straw man for the deliberate “purpose” of pretending to not be certain of uncertain things everybody is arbitrarily deciding to be certain of.
  • Rand gives a possible motive for this complicated conspiracy later in the chapter: “No one can be certain of anything” is a “rationalization of a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain”iii; but she provides no evidence that David Hume was envious or hated people who were certain, and she makes no mention of Hume’s deductive logic.
  • Her sentence and paragraph ends without solving the mystery of how “nobody is certain” contradicts “don’t be so sure”.

Rand’s sentence isn’t rational or logical or grammatical. It’s a plate of spaghetti.

iSignet edition, Penguin Books, 1984

iiPg 14.

iiiPg 18.

Rand vs Einstein

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism disagrees with Albert Einstein.

Objectivism pg 127:

The theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy presents men with the following choice: If your statement is proved it says nothing about that which exists; if it is about existents, it cannot be proved… …If you validate it by an appeal to the meanings of your concepts then it is cut off from reality; if you validate it by an appeal to your percepts , then you cannot be certain of it… …Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants.”

Language in Thought and Action pg 122:

This principle is well understood in mathematics. Hence, in Einstein’s words, “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.”

Rand rejects what Einstein proclaims.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition, 1979

Part II: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harcourt Brace and Co., Harvest edition 1990

An example of what Einstein was talking about:

Language in Thought and Action pg 122:

The mathematical “point” (which has a position but occupies no space) and the mathematical “circle” (which is a closed figure with all points equidistant from the center) exist only as definitions. Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular.

Rand vs Science 1.2

Objectivism and Logical Positivism are different in some ways, but are the same in the ways below. Modern scientific method, also called Positivism or neoPositivism or Popper Positivism, is the mirror opposite of Rand’s epistemology.

Objectivism and Logical Positivism are equivalent in that the premises must be referable to observed reality:

  • Atlas Society http://www.atlassociety.org/logical-positivism-vs-objectivism: “the meaning of a statement is the existential facts identified by the statement.”
  • Compared to Logical Positivism (Wikipedia 3.2 Observation/theory gap): “Early, most logical positivists proposed that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple ‘protocol sentences’ grounded in observable facts…”
  • On the other hand: Positivism can utilize imaginary constructs w/o basis in observable reality as premises1.

In Objectivism and Logical Positivism, concepts reached through logical processes are not necessarily found in reality:

  • Atlas Society http://www.atlassociety.org/logical-positivism-vs-objectivism: “Not all statements need to be themselves empirically verifiable: human knowledge is a hierarchy based on the immediately given, but by a process of abstraction we can generalize to discover new relationships. Statements are comprised of concepts—and some, but certainly not all, concepts have direct perceptual referents.”
  • Compared to Logical Positivism Wikipedia 3.2 Observation/theory gap:  “Further, theoretical terms no longer need to acquire meaning by explicit definition from observational terms: the connection may be indirect, through a system of implicit definitions…”
  • On the other hand, Positivism requires testing of the conclusions against observable reality2.

Therefore: While Rand disparages Logical Positivism, her own epistemology shares equivalent flaws and the modern scientific method of Positivism contradicts Rand’s epistemology.

1Hawking universe in a nutshell pg. 59

2Ibid. pg. 31

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1b and 1c

Russell’s Paradox proves Rand wrong and falsifies her philosophy with objective evidence.

http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

(This post, intended to show that Rand’s epistemology is not logical, seems to be perceived as an attempt to show logic to be false since it contradicts Rand’s epistemology! Judging by the comments, anyway.)

Part B: Russell’s Paradox vs Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology.

In Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, mental concepts are “classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents”i. Rand’s philosophy taught that to have mental concepts require us to observe fundamentalii essential distinguishing characteristicsiii in real life which share a “Conceptual Common Denominator”iv. In Rand’s philosophy, logic is “the art of non-contradictory identification”v of those observations; the result of that process is a mental concept.

Russell’s Paradox proved you shouldn’t just describe a “set” and apply logic to it, because you can get contradiction. Until Russell, “it was initially assumed that any well-defined condition (or precisely specified property) could be used to determine a set.”vi. Rand’s ideal of a mental concept is that old-fashioned kind of set theory.

Russell’s Paradox logically proves Rand Rand’s logical epistemology is false in three simple steps:

1: Some concepts contain themselves. For example, the concept “things which are not a table” (called a “contrary” in Rand’s philosophyvii), is itself not a table so it describes itself. You could say, “this concept is not a table” and write it down on a list of things which are not tables.

Another example of a concept that contained itself would be that on a list of everything in the universe, the first thing would be “this list”.

Both of those concepts would be contained in a big list labeled “concepts which contain themselves”. Let’s call this big list concept “A”, and we can write “concept A” in the list first thing; because it contains itself, too.

2: Other concepts do not contain themselves. A list of teacups doesn’t include the list as part of the set of teacups. The concept of a foot is not a foot. Mankind is not a man.

Those three examples are contained in a big list titled “concepts which do not contain themselves”. This list must be concept “not-A”, but…

3: Does that last concept contain itself or not? Can we write “this concept” on the list? Is it “A” or “not-A”? If the concept does not contain itself, we should write it down – which means it does contain itself (there it is on the list), but then it cannot fit it’s own definition as a concept which does not contain itself, so it shouldn’t be on the list and there is contradiction.

By proving the objective definition of sets can lead to logical contradiction, Russell’s Paradox proves Rand’s objective definitions of concepts can result in contradiction. Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology is proved false.

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C:

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C (Revised):

Russell’s Paradox demonstrates Objectivism is false with real world examples. We can look at actual lists like above and see that A is not-A if it is A, and can be A only if it is not-A. Rand’s assertion that all real things can be logically categorized as A or not-A is demonstrated to be false by objective evidence. Try it at home! Get some pieces of paper and make the actual lists and put labels on them. The last list can’t get a label.

The solution to the riddle is that there are rules we have to make up for logic to work right (axioms), and one of them is that sets can’t contain themselves. Even though we can make a list with the words “this list” on it, we can’t use it for logic. The concept we can see right in front of us can’t be used in a logical system, which falsifies Rand’s Objectivist philosophy of logic.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

iPg 62 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiPg 59 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiiPg 55 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

ivPg 18 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

vPg 46 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

viStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

vii Pg 77 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979