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.