Tag: einstein

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.

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.