| |
For what it’s worth, Jordan, I think I know what you are getting at and can agree with it.
It’s like Occam’s Razor in science, right? The simpler explanation has the advantage simply by being…simpler, less complex, fewer steps. I started to get onto what you were onto when you mentioned establishing certain Objectivists positions from different fields, different angles (e.g., Branden and Psychology.)
This may be outside of your point, but intelligent design in schools comes to mind. Religionists want to teach the masses of children that a certain arbitrary nonsense is just like any other science. The battle can be successfully fought only if enough people speak up that this is arbitrary nonsense, so let’s not allow the religionists to get their way getting it taught to the masses of children. Objectivists could be a part of that speaking up. SIMPLE speaking up: That’s not science it’s religion; it shouldn’t be taught in the public schools.
Instead we get from Objectivists: ‘This wouldn’t be an issue if the government were not in the education business. Coercive taxation, blah, blah, well let’s discuss the nature of man, blah, blah…’ It’s the second semester of intelligent design immersion before the chain of argumentation ends!
|
|
