Tag: untruthful

Alan Greenspan 1.2

Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly. He argues that “wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations… the term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value.”i”

  • There are two necessary conditions for categorizing something as a luxury good which Greenspan omits: 1) A luxury good is not a necessityii. 2) The economic demand for a luxury good is elasticiii. Greenspan’s definition of the term “luxury good” is false through omission.
  • The vocabulary of economicsiv classifies food, especially staples such as wheat, as a necessity good, not a luxury good. The economic consequences are well knownv. Greenspan is incorrect.
  • Elastic demand for luxury goods means people buy disproportionately less as their income falls. Demand for food is “inelastic”, which means people have to buy a certain amount even if they are poorvi or if the price is high. The high unit value of wheat for the underfed people in Greenspan’s example is due to the necessity of food (demand) and the apparent lack of it (supply). Greenspan’s characterization of wheat as a luxury for underfed people is false and incorrect.

Therefore, Alan Greenspan presents an incorrect example of a luxury good and defines the common economic term “luxury good” incorrectly.

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

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

iiiIbid.

ivhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_good

vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel’s_law

viIbid.

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 vs Science 1.4

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory, especially “predictions which are ‘risky’ (in the sense of being intuitively implausible or of being startlingly novel) and experimentally testable”. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects 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.”

“Risky, implausible and novel” are not the same as impossible. Their predictions must be testable, therefore not impossible. Her argument is false and 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 the quotes and 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.

Close analysis 1.4

The close reading of the beginning of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness continues:

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with ones own interest.”

  • Her statement is false. That is not the exact meaning.
  • Her statement is false. That is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, which is “regard for one’s own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.”
  • Leaving out half the definition is a lie by omission.
  • She is setting up a straw man, to create a false choice.

Sentence 9: “This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests.”

Sentence 10: “It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.”

  • Abstract concepts do not perform tasks. It is the task of people to answer such questions, and those answers are called ethics. Cart before horse.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is “created”, thus fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Now that Rand has set up two straw men with her false definition of selfishness and her misrepresentation of the Christian philosophy of Altruism, she uses them as though they are the only ethical options for us. That false choice drives the rest of her philosophic argument.

(Analysis of sentence 11 has been previously published)

Close Analysis 1.3 One sentence, seven false statements

From the Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Rand untruth 1.2

Ayn Rand’s incorrect definition leads to an error in logic, which makes her ethics a false choice.

Rand defines selfishness as “concern with one’s own interest”[1]. The form of this statement is “selfishness = (A)”. She gives us the mutually exclusive opposite choice of altruism. Altruism is (non-A). She puts it as a choice between black and white[2], as well as between good and evil. It is two-valued, Aristotle logic.

This conflicts with the form of her definition of altruism when she says “altruism claims ‘action taken for the benefit of others is good, while action taken for the benefit of one’s self is evil’”[3]. The form of this definition is “altruism = (B + not-A)”. In other words, if self benefit is (A) then benefit for others (B) is distinct from the prohibition of self benefit (not-A).

Altruism is (B) or (not-A) in some of her definitions and (B + not-A) in another definition. It cannot be all three. She is in contradiction of herself.

Rand falls into contradiction because she has given only half the definition of the word “selfishness”. The full definition of selfishness in the Oxford Unabridged is: concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[4].

The form of the full definition is “selfishness = (A + not-B)”. This form is consistent with her definition of “altruism = (B + not-A)”.

Both full definitions have two variables: one’s own interest (A) and the interests of others (B). Those variables each have two possible states: care or not-care. Therefore the situation has four possible permutations to choose from:

(A + B): Care for self and also care for others at the same time;

(not-A + not-B): Not care about self, nor care for others (nihilist);

(not-A + B): Not care for self and only care for others (altruist);

(A + not-B): Only care for self, while not caring for others (selfish).

Ayn Rand presents the choice as between selfishness and altruism only. Some would see that as two-valued, some as Aristotle’s. Because she brings up good and evil, some would call it Manichaeism.  Regardless, it is a false choice.

Her erroneous logic arises from her incorrect definition. Her incorrect definition is an untruth due to omission.

(Altruism is a non-A morality promulgated by “the Witch Doctor” in For the New Intellectual, pg 17 & 18, Signet edition, New American Library)

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction

[2] The Cult of Moral Grayness

[3]  The Cult of Moral Grayness

[4] oxford unabridged

Rand is untruthful 1.1

Ayn Rand says, “… the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests”[1].

The Oxford Unabridged says selfishness is: “concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[2].

The definition provided by Rand is not the exact meaning. That was an untrue statement.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is false. There is no one official dictionary definition of any word.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is unsupported. She does not footnote her claim.

Her claim to present the “dictionary definition” is demonstrably false. Her definition is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged.

Because her definition provides only half the full meaning, her definition of selfishness is an untruth by omission.

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Intro

[2] oxford unabridged