I haven't any problem with subjectivism in psychology, but I can't see that it's very useful in science. Of course, a really dedicated subjectivist might question the reality of the external world and physical science. Absolutes, especially as used in philosophy or science, haven't much in common with subjectivism. Objectivism, especially the Ayn Rand variety, strikes me as a stunted philosophy that can't explain the existence of the transcendent values that it borrows, such as logic, but at least it argues for the real existence of the external world, an advance upon subjectivism IMO.
I wouldn't know what the denizens of Ask God are up to, as I rarely venture there. Maybe fideism. I'm partial to Thomist realism, and what I think my pal Bob Passantino calls substance dualism, or maybe it's ontological dualism. How else to explain the nature of synthetic apriori statements? |
