Rand's integrative approach to cognition seems to have worked in the old observable scientific view when it was easy to both demonstrate physical and chemical phenomena empirically and rationally (thus the integrative methodology). But now in the world of subatomic science we have to place more emphasis on equations and mathematics to prove theory, not experiment.
This was brought up in the DIM Hypothesis and the author seems to reject modern physics in this sense; therefore, should objecitivst attempt to clarify or change Rand's theory of the integrative approach? It seems to me the field of objectivist epistemology must change in the face of science.
So does objectivism need to change?
If modern physics isn't based on a rational epistemology, then the physicists will need to explain what their epistemology is. No science, including physics, can arise without a philosophical foundation of some kind. The DIM Hypothesis provides an excellent survey of the three major philosophies and their corresponding modes of cognitive integration, which have fueled various approaches to physics (and other aspects of human culture) over the centuries. It is philosophy that shapes and conditions physics, not vice versa, and the strong influence of non-rational philosophy is abundantly evident in modern physics. One key point that Dr. Peikoff developes in the book is that the philosophy very explicitly preceded the physics. The science of physics did not somehow pop into existence first and then condition the historical development of philosophy. Here are some summarized highlights from The DIM Hypothesis, from the section on Quantum Mechanics (QM):
It must be emphasized again that the DIM Hypothesis is primarily an integration of history and philosophy, not some alternative version of the special sciences. No philosophy can replace special sciences such as physics. Philosophy only provides the background that drives cultural products of all kinds, including the special sciences.
answered Mar 25 '13 at 23:02
Ideas for Life ♦