Discussion of https://polymathic-infinities.ghost.io
Rand wrote: “What the enemies of reason seem to know, but its alleged defenders have not discovered, is the fact that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man’s mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason.”
Hall criticizes Rand’s writing as “impenetrable” and excessively abstract, lacking practical examples, particularly in science. He contrasts this with Popper’s methodology grounded in historical scientific developments. Hall claims Rand’s exposition centers on abstract discussions of cognition and measurement without sufficient illustration.
Rand wrote: “Science is born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, science will be next.”
Criticism: sources aren’t given.
Hall argues Rand over-relies on language and definitions, reducing epistemological inquiry to questions of explicit linguistic concepts. This potentially excludes inexplicit knowledge—procedural knowledge like riding a bicycle.
It sounds like Brett Hall didn’t read much Rand before criticizing her. She talked about automatization of subconscious ideas, including emotions. She didn’t think everything was explicit. But there’s no source so I haven’t checked what Hall actually said.
Popper criticizes induction for its inability to justify generalizations, advocating falsification as more robust for scientific progress.
Popper criticized induction for not working at all. He said it’s a myth and that it’s logically impossible to induce anything and no one has ever done it. The issue isn’t how well induction works, how much justification it provides, or how robust it is, but that, as a matter of logic, there is no such thing as induction. Induction doesn’t provide a series of steps a person could do, at all, to get any ideas of any quality.
Popper advocated an evolutionary epistemology of conjectures and refutations for all fields including science. Falsification is just one piece of that.
For Objectivism, certainty doesn’t mean infallibility or impossibility of revision. As Peikoff explains, “Certainty is contextual. It is a relationship between a conclusion and the evidence that supports it.” This threads the needle between dogmatism (claiming certainty regardless of evidence) and skepticism (denying certainty despite evidence).
Regarding the relatively minor issue of terminology, I think Objectivism is wrong. “Certainty” isn’t a good term for fallible knowledge. And I think the practical result is that many Objectivists are worse about fallibility than Rand was.
I don’t think the space between dogmatism and skepticism is the size of the hole in a needle. I think it’s quite a large space. I don’t see dogmatism plus skepticism as dominating most of the options. I see them as the far ends of the spectrum.
“Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite,” he [Popper] wrote in “The Logic of Scientific Discovery.”
This is a misquote. Here’s the accurate quote from a different book, Conjectures and Refutations:
For this, indeed, is the main source of our ignorance—the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
Note also the “can only be” vs. “can be only” difference.
I’ve repeatedly seen Objectivists misquote Popper. I think they’re trusting some secondary sources that they shouldn’t instead of quoting directly from Popper. When quoting secondary sources without checking primary sources, I think people should cite it that way, not cite it as if they got it directly from the primary source. If they did that, it’d be easier to figure out what was happening.
Deutsch shares Popper’s fallibilism but adds profound optimism about human capacity to progress through better explanations. “The growth of knowledge consists of correcting misconceptions in our theories.” This growth is unbounded: “The reach of explanations—of solutions to problems, of the answers to questions—has no limit.”
The first quote is in BoI but the 2nd isn’t. It’s not in FoR either. Googling it, the only result is this blog post that I’m reading, so I’m doubtful that it’s an accurate Deutsch quote.
I also wanted to comment that Deutsch doesn’t add optimism to Popper. That’s not a new, original contribution by Deutsch. That’s in most of Popper’s books, which frequently talk about error correction, growth of knowledge, problem solving and progress. See e.g. " A Summary by Way of a Preface" in In Search of a Better World or some of the discussion of optimism in Conjectures and Refutations including “I have said that I am an optimist.”
I think it’s understandable to believe Deutsch added optimism if you’ve read Deutsch but not Popper. In his books, I don’t think Deutsch does a good job of telling his readers that Popper was an optimist not just an evolutionary epistemologist.
The apparent conflict comes mostly from how they choose to talk about things, not fundamental disagreements. Rand’s “contextual certainty” and Popper’s “conjectural knowledge” sound like opposites, but both acknowledge that human understanding can be revised and that our cognitive abilities have limits. Both affirm genuine knowledge is possible.
Yeah I said something similar in Curiosity – Epistemology Without Weights and the Mistake Objectivism and Critical Rationalism Both Made
Commitment to Reason
Both traditions uphold reason as humanity’s fundamental cognitive tool.
** Objective Reality**
Both frameworks insist reality exists independently of consciousness and operates according to discoverable causal principles.
Evidence-Based Inquiry
Both traditions reject arbitrary assertions and emphasize evidence in knowledge claims.
Dynamic Knowledge
Perhaps most surprisingly, both traditions acknowledge the dynamic, evolving nature of human knowledge. Rand’s contextual approach to certainty—that knowledge is valid relative to available evidence—parallels Popper’s view that theories remain tentative, subject to refinement or replacement.
Yeah. I made some similar points at Curiosity – Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology
Where They Still Disagree
Despite these points of contact, important differences resist complete synthesis.
The status of certainty presents the most significant divide. For Rand, certainty is both possible and necessary—a state achieved when concepts are validated against reality through proper process. For Popper and Deutsch, certainty is neither possible nor desirable—all knowledge claims remain perpetually provisional, subject to potential refutation or replacement.
Wait I thought you said earlier that contextual certainty is compatible with fallibilism and that knowledge is always provisional in Objectivism. So what’s the conflict besides terminology and emphasis? E.g. from earlier:
Peikoff articulates this clearly: “As new evidence emerges, our concepts may need revision.” This admission—that even well-validated concepts remain open to modification—creates an unexpected bridge to Popper’s fallibilism. Both recognize knowledge formation is an ongoing process, not static achievement.
Doesn’t Objectivism agree that all knowledge is subject to potential refutation and replacement even once it’s “certain”?
Though I don’t know where that Peikoff quote is from, if anywhere. It’s not in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and the only Google result is the blog post I’m reading.
Popper’s approach is primarily critical, advancing through elimination of errors rather than establishment of truths. Deutsch balances construction and criticism through creating and refining explanations, but maintains Popper’s rejection of certainty.
No, Deutsch fully follows Popper here. There’s no change, no balance, no new idea, just evolution of ideas through error correction using conjectures and refutations, the same as Popper.
In his books, I don’t think Deutsch does a good job of telling his readers that Popper wrote a ton about explanations.
Critical Rationalism might benefit from Objectivism’s clarity about starting points and its hierarchical view of knowledge.
For that to work, you’d have to point out some kind of mistake in Popper’s criticisms of foundations of knowledge.
So I am not an expert on AI, but some of these articles look AI generated to me.
Things I noticed when looking through a few of them:
- Many articles posted on the same days. This might mean the content was uploaded from somewhere else, but it’s not all the same day. Lots on 10/15/25, but that is not the first date articles went up.
- Lots of em dashes — which I love! But they are unfortunately also heavily associated with AI writing.
- Lots of specific details such as quotes and case studies, but no citations or links
- AI images used for article thumbnails
- Many of the arguments feel super familiar to me. They remind me of typical arguments I saw across a range of somewhat right wing, objectivist, techbro, libertarian, classical liberal, anti-SJW internet culture that was fairly mainstream approximately 5-10 years ago. In many cases they do not seem to have anything new to add, and they seem oddly dated in their references. It seems weird to discuss topics such as the 2nd Amendment or feminist inclusion movements in academia and corporate culture and make no mention at all of how the current admin has moved the national dialogue on these issues.
And the biggest red flag to me is the most recent post, that seems particularly poetic compared to the more factual articles I read before it.
This one: The Sentinel's Stand: On Defending the Flame When Shadows Consume the Light
This poetic post has a lot of noticeable hallmarks of AI.
AI often does a “not X, but Y” format when making statements intended to be poetic or artistic or empathic. Also, the Y is often a punchy but somewhat repetitive list.
Another example are repetitive sentences in general, that kind of just rephrase the same idea a few times in a list. Or things that are somewhat flowery, but without much clear meaning.
Some quotes:
You don’t just preserve—you act, defy, protect
Not the straightforward tiredness of the worker nor the disciplined drain of the warrior, but a deeper toll—the marrow-weary cost of upholding defenses that the multitude has proclaimed unnecessary.
This is the load of the guardian who clings to the ramparts after the gates have swung wide to the invaders—not awaiting aid, but because forsaking the post would nourish the very entropy that devours resolve.
What we confront is no mere erosion but a premeditated subversion of every pillar sustaining Western Civilization—the Enlightenment’s exaltation of reason, the Classical liberal ideals of individual liberty, free inquiry, and the rule of law over whim. The insidious swap of achievement for entitlement, of elegance for distortion, of debate for decree—and for the assassin’s bullet.
This is no maturation of tongue but its mutilation. When words detach from reality, when “liberty” no longer signifies freedom or “justice” equity under law, we spiral into raw dominance and caprice—undoing the Enlightenment’s hard-won clarity and the Classical liberal compact that shields the individual from the collective’s crush.
These stand out to me as being reminiscent of AI-generated writing.
However, I am not an expert. I would not even call myself an experienced amateur. So I may be way off-base here. Perhaps someone with more familiarity can chime in and set me straight.
I’m less of an expert than you, but after a quick look at some articles the writing style felt very AI to me.
I edited my post above to clarify that for two misunderstandings about Deutsch and how he differs from Popper, I blame Deutsch more than his readers.
Regarding AI, I don’t think the posts I read are full AI. The Rand and Popper content doesn’t have enough training data. It’s pretty distinctive. They might use AI-assisted writing though, I don’t know, but that could potentially explain some of the misquoting and lack of sources.