Yes, even Objectivists Can break the First Rule

Published on October 3, 2005 By John Galt In Religion

Several objectivist web sites are linking to this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

Why? Because it's proves what they instinctually know or want to believe is true.

If you read that article you’ll see the flaws. Tiny sample, and absolutely no control over any other variables etc., etc.

It is far more likely that the reason why there is less violence in Britain and much less in Europe is because they’re far less free than Americans and because of gun control, even when they choose to be stupid and can get around government regulations they don’t have the means to go and be stupid on a large scale like Americans.

Does this mean that Europe and Britain are any better? Nope, in fact worse because it shows that people don’t have the right to be stupid, and thus are not free. With freedom comes the risk that other people will be stupid and will do harm to others and themselves. It’s a risk you take, because the reward is self-determination and is more than worth it; especially in a society that allows you to defend yourself.

The interesting and inescapable observation about the article is that the researcher had a theory and set out to prove it and then came up with a study that would give him the statistics that he wanted with no regard for the truth. This is subjectivism folks and guess what? It’s easy to spot true evil such as this.

The core of science is observing something, a problem, or just an observation of fact (I hold this ball and let go, it falls to the ground…), then taking that information and testing against why it could be happening and finding the truth. Instead, subjectivism is slowly creeping into science (you see this a lot in Quantum mechanics) and the end result is studies like this. Take something you want to prove right, and set out to find evidence that it is. This is backwards logic (logical fallacy) and complete crap that we must not only place no value in, but work to destroy as quickly as possible in all areas, but especially so in science.

Guard yourselves carefully. It is very easy to break the first rule.

Comments

Champas Socialist

on Oct 03, 2005

I know I 'm not expressing a new opinion here, but God you're stupid. That's a purely objective standpoint btw. I observed what you have said, I tested it against the normal ability to analyse and think and found the truth that you were below that standard.

Science has always been overly subjective. There is nothing at all new about scientists who are biased and who ignore contradictory evidence so as to prove what they want to believe. This has nothing to do with the subjectivist viewpoint, you'd just like to paint it as such so as to further your own agenda.

As for your comments "Europe is worse 'cause they're not free to kill each other"....I mean where do I start? Do I go with the hypocrisy of trying to make out that based on 1 law, you have decided that America is more free (apparently now a quantifiable concept) than Europe...Or do I just laugh at your idea of good and bad?

Furry Canary

on Oct 04, 2005

Presumably Mr. Galt, you would be happy to see Americans able to walk in to a corner shop and freely buy cocaine / heroin / plutonium / submachine guns / anthrax / intercontinental ballistic missiles / tanks / nuclear warheads etc. By your argument, that would make America 'better', in that it would enhance the freedom of people to be stupid.

'It’s a risk you take, because the reward is self-determination and is more than worth it'
If that's not a subjective judgement, I don't know what is!

bakerstreet

on Oct 04, 2005

...

John Galt

on Oct 08, 2005

You're free to buy whatever you want. You're also free to destroy your own life. Any legal system that ignores these two tenants has ends up spending billions if not trillions of dollars on a war they cannot win and enevitably loses. (War on Drugs anyone?) As the war on drugs clearly shows not only does stopping people from being stupid fail every time, but it also makes things worse not better. Time and again experiments are done with crime riddled areas of cities in Europe where the crime and violence and even poverty is directly drug related and they make the drugs legal and volia, the standard of living goes up, the violence drops to almost nothing, and the crime, even discounting drug arrests virtually disappears.

People will find ways around any law that you write that prevents them from being stupid. This is a fundamental truth with evidence throughout history (i.e. the smuggling of alchohol into the US through Smuggler's notch during the US's "dry" era.)

The only reasonable legal system there is, is one that punishes people for physically harming another (And Rand wasn't the first to point this out, St. Thomas Aquinas did so > 1000 years ago, Locke, and even an infamous senator in the old Roman republic did so. And then of course there is Aristotle.) A nuclear warhead is not in-and-of-itself evil. (as the 60 years with a lack of world war when there surely would have been otherwise because of communism oil reserves, etc. etc. proves)

When socialists finally figure out that they don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives any more than Christians do, no matter what their goal, no matter what positive they think they are going to achieve from it, then, well then, you get an objectivist.

And notice that I never once said that sujective science and the people that ignore reality and their observations to prove their own little theory correct is anything new. I just said that it's getting worse because of subjectivism and the "science" of statistics is being used in that cause.

The day that people figure out that any study with less than 1000 people in it is a complete and utter piece of shit that isn't worth the paper it's written on, the better off we will be. And even then, it tells you the result of a group and the statistical likelihood of encountering something. It does not, in any way, ever, tell you how an individual is going to be. This is simply racism, sexism and every other "group everyone together"-ism done with math. (Hence why medicine, the non-science is still not a science. Statistical means isn't science, it's laziness. Real science finds the reason 100% of the time for a given set of variables, not what the liklihood is that it might happen given a subset that might or might not be the entire picture and was definately arrived at by looking at other people that might or might not have anything to do with you.

As for the "subjective judgement", no it isn't subjective at all. It's conclusionary, as the result of all of the other analysis that I have done on this blog and others that are objectivists have done that I have both referenced with direct links and in general. It no way did I ever say that "it is more than worth it for me" I said it was worth it PERIOD. That is absolute, and not only that, but the statement is backed with proof after proof after proof that I need not repeat over and over again to demonstrate. Thus my objective conclusion is scientifically arrived upon, backed by multiple independant sources, including the many many observations of the failure of every other alternative ever tried.

Further my comments about the US being more free that Europe was made, not on the evidence of one example, I simply cited that one example. Go look at any of the European country's constitutions and compare it to that of the US and you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. (hell compare the US's constitution to that of Canada's and you'll see how much freer Americans are than Canadians and Canada is the birth place of the UN Chart of Human rights and freedoms. (written by a Canadian).

Sorry socialists. You struck out again. Maybe next time.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 10, 2005

I'm sorry but you haven't ever convincingly justified your point about freedom and it is a subjective judgment.

I agree with your point about statistics and really bad studies being discriminatory, but I don't agree this has anything to do with subjectivism. In fact your argument is one of the main criticisms that postmodernists make of the pseudo-sciences (like psychology).

Leauki

on Oct 10, 2005

The American belief that America is objectively more free than Europe puzzles me occasionally.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!