> D.H.R. wrote:
> > But to an Objectivist, the
> > fact that he's perceiving reality is of importance. I have a question
> > for
> > you, Nate: Does the obvious fact that the scientist is perceiving
> > reality,
> > have usefulness as far as doing the experiment is concerned?
>
> Only in so far as it makes the experiment of any use at all! A
> non-objective universe would make the experiment pointless.
Let's try a thought experiment, Nate. Let's assume the opposite of what
we think is true and then find the contradiction in the anti-thesis, shall
we?
The anti-thesis axioms:
"1) The universe is non-objective.
2) Scientists perform experiments on the universe that are meaningful."
Now, given these obviously erroneous axioms, where will we locate the
contradiction? If experiments on a non-objective universe are assumed to
be meaningful, what is the nature of "meaning"? Can we reach a definition
of "meaningful" derived from the anti-thesis axioms that is in clear
conflict with our understanding of what the "truth" is? And thus disprove
the anti-axioms?
Or... ?
Give it a shot, Nateman. Impress me with your Objective approach.
-Prof. Tim