Talk:Objectivism

Article Cross Talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Inductive/Deductive

I made a small change in the introduction. Where it read that man attains knowledge through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, I cut out "deductive." Since the introduction serves as a kind of "definition" of Objectivism, I think it should serve to distinguish the philosophy from the widest range of other philosophies, and Ayn Rand's emphasis on induction over deduction certainly fits that criteria. Ayn Rand defined deduction as the application of wider knowledge to a narrower observation; while this could be called, in a narrow sense, a form of attaining knowledge, it is not, in the Objectivist view, as fundamental as induction. I welcome any objections, but as a preemptive rebuttal, I offer Ayn Rand's words: The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. ''The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction."[emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the edit and the reason backing it. --Karbinski (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Same here. byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

RFC about criticism section

For months now there has been an ongoing back-and-forth (primarily between two editors) over how material about criticisms of Objectivism should be handled in the article. One favors having a distinct "Criticisms" section within the article. The other favors placing this material in the other sections, so that, for example, criticisms of Objectivism's ethical claims would appear in the section on ethics. A previous attempt at discussing this went nowhere, and the editors involved have continued their slow but interminable edit war. This needs to end. Therefore I am opening this Request for Comment to get broader input on which approach the article should use. So to frame this in a clear yes-no/support-oppose fashion, the question for comment is: Should there be a distinct section about criticisms? --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.-- Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's reasonable to have both: a general Appraisal/Influence section about Rand's status as a philosopher, and criticisms of specific argument in specific sections. 1Z (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Peterdjones: That is a good compromise suggestion: That is an okay suggestion, provided that criticisms are not duplicated. At a minimum, if the Criticism section is kept (and I'm not sure it should be, see my comments below), it should be renamed to "Appraisal" or "Influence" or "Reception" and it should include all assessments (positive and negative) from outside analysts and philosophers. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Such a section would be almost entirely criticism, since Objectivism is held in low regard by most non-Objectivist philosophers. I don't say this as an argument for or against the idea, but just for clarity. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.

Also, WP:STRUCTURE says: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

BigK HeX's interpretation of this is that if we have an uninterrupted explanation of Objectivism, the site is essentially saying "Objectivism is true". This is nonsense--the article has to explain it. We don't need to include "though disputed" because the article never says "Objectivism is true". The correct interpretation of this point of WP:STRUCTURE is that an article which explains an event needs to have different interpretations folded in, or else there is one interpretation being presented. Here, the simple fact is that there is only one interpretation of what Objectivism is--whatever the person(s) who created say it is; an explanation is not the same as an evaluation. If we were going to consistently apply BigK HeX's interpretation, we'd be putting "though disputed" before every point of view in every article. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

There is no shortage of criticism of Rand's general competence as a philosopher. 1Z (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not the same as general criticisms of Objectivism. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011

• Avoid "Criticism" section- The general policy of WP is to avoid polarizing material into distinct pro & con sections. Instead, it is considered better to organize the material by topic and weave the pros/cons about the topic within it. This is a consequence of the WP:NPOV policy. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay for details. For example, the PETA animal rights organization has been involved in lots of controversy, but you'll notice the article does not have a "Controversy" section. Instead, the material on controversies/criticisms is woven through the PETA article in the various topical sections. That is the WP ideal. Taking this article, I see two topics in the existing Criticism section: one on ethics and one on epistemology. It would be much more encyclopedic to delete the Criticism section and replace it with two new sections: move it into two existing sections: one on Ethics and one on Epistemology, and in those sections include all material relevant to those topics. E.g. the Ethics section could contain Objectivism's principles on ethics, as well as opinions (both favorable and not) by notable critics and thinkers. --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although you mention creating new sections, there are already sections in the article on ethics and epistemology. Would I be correct to assume you support redistributing the material to those existing sections? --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out: I did indeed overlook those existing sections. Yes, I would endorse distributing the material currently in the Criticism sections into those other topical sections (I've amended my comment above, accordingly). That would (1) retain all the material; (2) not polarize the article into pros/cons; and (3) be more encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If we weave criticisms into article (which I'm still opposed to) I still hope we don't have "though disputed" without saying who disputes in and why. 1- It's obvious that just about every opinion is disputed 2-It's redundant if we include criticisms later (which we do) and 3- it gives the impression that the idea is crazy because we don't say something to the effect of "it's disputed and praised by people". Byelf2007 (talk) 20 September 2011

You are certainly correct that criticisms should not be duplicated twice: once in a Criticism section, and again in the topical section. And, if the criticisms are in the topical sections: by all means they should be presented neutrally, presumably after the viewpoint of Objectivism is presented first and explained. About the only good reason I can think of for having a dedicated Criticism section is if there are several excellent secondary sources that devote themselves to "criticism of Objectivism" ... that may warrant a dedicated section. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've seen it both ways, and the article seems to read okay either way. One NPOV problem that presents when weaving criticisms into the existing topical sections is POV editors try to front-load the section with the criticism, before any context is laid down. As well, some left-overs usually means a separate section survives, though often with a narrower heading. With the single section however, topical criticisms appear less topical and more editorial - I think this is what WP:Structure is advising against. Therefore I agree with Noleander and Peterdjones: avoid criticism section with topical criticisms (narrow critiques within a branch) and allow for a section to catch broad criticisms of Objectivism. --Karbinski (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But are there any broad criticisms of Objectivism? If we don't find any, then having the criticisms section seems like the way to go. "presumably after the viewpoint of Objectivism is presented first and explained" is very true. This is another reason why we shouldn't have "though disputed" before the explanation. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011

RE: "POV editors try to front-load the section with the criticism"

When negative criticism is the general professional regard for Objectivist claims, making reference to the majority view would be decidedly NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I understood the objection to be against putting criticisms before the viewpoint being criticized has even been described. That would tend to make the article very difficult to follow, so hopefully no one is explicitly supporting that. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. Per User:Noleander and my multiple reiterations in the past, NPOV policy is pretty clear that criticism sections are to be avoided in Wiki articles. In this case, they are easily avoided. BigK HeX (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid both one broad criticism section and multiple sub-sections of criticism by topic. What is wrong with having all responses to Objectivism (positive & negative) in the Intellectual impact section? Crazynas ^t 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone wants multiple sub-sections of criticism. What has been done in the past (as part of the back-and-forth) has been to incorporate criticisms into the existing sections, as in, "Objectivism claims yadda yadda. So-and-so has criticized this claim, saying blah blah." Separate sub-heads for "Criticism of ethics", etc., would seem to be the worst of both worlds. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to this diff, doesn't seem to be there now however. Crazynas ^t 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia for a long time has been trending away from separate "Criticism" sections, and reader laziness is no excuse for changing that trend (e.g. section posted below). Criticism should be naturally included in the body of the article, where the criticism will fit most clearly in the full context of that which is being criticized. All criticism is criticism of some specific point or segment of the philosophy or the individual behind the philosophy, so it only makes sense to include the criticism next to that point/segment where it exists in the article. This also reduces the addition of needlessly vague criticism. --BRIAN0918 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. In order to avoid confusing the reader about what is part of Objectivism and what is not, I suggest following the approach generally used in the Ayn Rand article: Each section should explain, without critical interruption, what Objectivism has to say about the section's topic, then report important criticism relevant for that section with a clear introductory clause along the lines of "Critics have noted that ..." If there is need for a generic section (similar to the Ayn Rand article's "Popular influence" or "Academic reaction" sections) then generic criticism can be reported at the end of that section also. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article today already familiar with objectivism, and I was hoping to read some criticisms that exist of it. I was disappointed to not find any such sections in the contents. I can imagine that some editors who are objectivists might want to keep such information difficult to find, but I think that for the benefit of the readers of this article, there should either be a section specifically on criticism or, as a second-best solution, a criticism subsection of each regular section. 71.94.185.174 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section?

How can this be? An article without a section devoted to criticism, despite the fact that criticisms of Rand's Objectivism are in no way scarce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalistOverlord (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean for this to be a reply to the RFC above? Because that is precisely what is being discussed up there. Crazynas ^t 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've seen more than one talk page where someone complained that X should be in the article, when in fact X was in the article and they just didn't see it. But you could take this as an implicit argument favoring a separate criticism section, because there is a subset of readers who won't find the criticisms if there isn't a boldface header called "Criticisms". For whatever that's worth. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sections

I think it is pretty obvious that the long sub-sections describing aspects of Rand's philosophy should have a beginning paragraph that endeavors to give an overview of the lengthy material that follows. Obviously this page is heavily edited by fans of Rand and seems to have a tendency to dive into the proselytizing, but I still don't think this Wiki article should drop this writing convention. Is there anyone who disagrees that the subsections, such as those on Ethics or Politics, should open with an overview paragraph? BigK HeX (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2011

Criticism in the lede.

Editor Byelf2007 moved a large section of the article into the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the content, not be the content. In addition, this editor also wishes to add criticism into the lede (and has been reverted at least twice). The argument for having criticism in the lede was that it was "commonplace". I reverted pointing out that criticism is not present in the articles on Communism, Existentialism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Anarchism, etc. Other articles simply provide a summary of the philosophy and leaves criticsm to the body. Finally, the current lede is preposterously and weirdly POV and needs changing in some way. I considered reverting the edit, but do not wish to engage in an edit war. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing it to "reception". Byelf2007 (talk) 21 February 2012

The last paragraph in the lede should just be deleted. Its a full philosophy as verifiable by reliable sources. What secondary sources do we have that discuss its mainstream standing? I know of none, so I take the view that the fact that Objectivism's historical lack of mainstream attention given its absolute rejection of the maintream is not notable enough for the lead. If I'm wrong lets just stick to what the secondary sources have to say instead of labouring to make the point. --Karbinski (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)