The relationship between Objectivist Philosophy and the Sciences

Accepting the 5 branches division and definition of philosophy as defined on the Importance of Philosophy website; how then are the sciences related to it?

Currently I think that the physical sciences are based upon what has been listed in the Metaphysics and Epistemology categories, with the questions of how science is actually applied are questions that Ethics and Politics answer.

But what about those which are currently termed the "social" sciences? Such as Economics and Sociology?

Post 1

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:12am

First I think it's important to say that philosophy is also a science, distinguished only by its subject matter. Rand, when she is speaking strictly, refers to "the special sciences" to distinguish psychology, physics, geometry, etc. from philosophic questions. (It is misleading to say "the physical sciences," because not all sciences deal with material things. Sciences investigate reality, and each science has its own methodology and tools.) Speaking loosely, she slips into saying "the sciences," as I believe we all do in contexts where our meaning is clear.

You are correct. Metaphysics states the basic nature of the universe studied by the special sciences. Epistemology lays down the basic rules any study of anything must follow.

Post 2

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:13am

Ethics gives the principles to guide any important human action, and politics must defer to ethics.

Economics defers to epistemology, and, these days, politics (Objectivism holds that there ought to be a separation of economics and state). Sociology, in my view, is not a valid science. What is valid in it would seem to come under politics.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/13, 12:56pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:11pm

"Sociology, in my view, is not a valid science."

Why not?

Post 4

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 2:47am

Sociology is hard to classify as a science because of the following:

1.) The division about what exactly sociology is can be rather diverse.
          Some think of it as the psychology of the masses
          Some think its the study of power structure and how that related to social problems
          Some think its the best justification for their political goals

2.) Scientific Method is not easily applied to this 'science' unless sociology is psych for the masses

           Alot of what sociology is are floating assertions based on observations of society backed by weak statistical data. Though don't tell a social scientist that because they will rant for hours about how legit their findings actualy are. However, an interesting study of sociology might point to the fact that a sociologist seems to find evidence to support whatever claims he supports in his own philosophy. So socialist sociologist find evidence to support socialist claims, where as others find evidence to support their own claims. Its rather sad but there are few sociologists that are working towards finding objective evidence. I mean a bit more than floating assertions 'prooven' by statistical evidence.

3.) Sociologists generaly don't take heed of other scientific information when making their assertions.

          They will argue for a raise in the minimum wage as the best method for helping a certain strata of society completely against all economic data that shows this increases unemployment in an economy. Their ignorence of economics is the greatest discredit to them in my opinion.

I do not think that sociology can make any real advances until they accept firmly

1.) The science of Philosophy
2.)  Psychology (dropping its psychoanalytical and eclectic mysticism)
3.) The science of Economics
4.) Logical Methods of Study

If sociology is the study of societies they will need to understand and be able to break down the basics of that societies beliefs through the science of philosophy. Behind every human action is philosophy among a number of other varriables, to understand how a society function you need to understand how philosophy functions. You cannot understand a society which is an aggrigate of humans unless you understand basics of human behavior. You cannot make assertions about how an economy effects a strata of people unless you understand and accept economics. The last is most importaint. Floating assertions as your findings are no way to conduct scientific inquery.

Thats basicly what I think is needed any other things Rodney? You write the text books I am sure you have observed the sociology texts and know just what i am talking about here.

Eric J. Tower

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/15, 2:49am)

Post 5

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:54am

I edit the books, anyway. Sometimes I am torn between correcting the bad or unclear writing, so that the stupidities will be thrown into relief, and leaving things as is so that form will match content. Both publishers and authors are fine with whatever I do, it seems! I have worked on dozens of these books.

I actually went further than Eric and said sociology is not a valid science at all. Anything the field contributes that is not already covered by valid sciences like anthropology, history, etc. is bound to have political implications. To attempt to examine social questions while remaining neutral on fundamental issues such as individualism and freedom is to ignore the facts established by the queen of the sciences, philosophy (specifically the branches known as ethics and politics). And such pernicious neutrality seems basic to sociology. It professes to be above all such battles, and yet obviously presents itself as discovering useful data to deal with various problems.

(A side note. When philosophy is called the queen of the sciences, it ought to be understood to mean "queen" in the sense of a queen bee--she is also a bee. Not royalty that is ruling over subjects who are not also royalty.)

Post 6

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:06pm

Perhaps your right Rodney.

Sociology broken down is the study of society...

perhaps more accurately in most colleges and universities the study of the collective?

In a way Objectivism is its antithesis, since objectivist is a study of the individual.

Although Objectivism is a bit more grounded rationaly...just a bit.

Eric.

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/15, 12:07pm)

Post 7

Monday, April 19, 2004 - 2:01am

"And such pernicious neutrality seems basic to sociology"

Quite so - and, additionally, neutrality is seen in sociology as providing for an objective viewpoint. Of course, if you have an objective viewpoint (which is possible), and there is objective truth (which there is) then you cannot retain your neutrality, because your reason will enable you to judge one analysis, one system, etc. as superior to another. Objective truth implies that there is only one truth, leaving 'neutrality' impossible.

Objectivism tends to proceed from the Thatcherite axiom, "there is no such thing as society, only individuals" and consider larger social constructs as collections of individuals. Sociology as a result becomes a matter of metaphysics and ethics - to Objectivists, reason and self-interest. Objectivists are those who are truly 'unbiased' in their thinking - hence the name - rejecting unwritten assumptions and grounding social analysis in individual reason. Additionally, commenting from what is essentially 'outside' society - not accepting majority social doctrines - provides a properly objective viewpoint.

Post 8

Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:50am

I retract it.
(Edited by Eddie Wood on 4/20, 9:31pm)

Post 9

Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:55am