Agreed. Now, consider who defines "honestly", and by what criteria.
>Richard quoted Richard Dawkins in his Virus of the Mind: "It's almost as
if
>the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism,
and
>to find it hard to believe." I see an analogy in understanding
parasitism:
>a parasitic mind is programmed in a way which makes it impossible to
>understand it.
I see an analogy in Objectivism: a circular axiom-set-based understanding
has limits, but cannot see them, or beyond them. I have no problem in
understanding the concept of parasitism; I have disagreements on what
would constitute parasitism, and who should be in charge of deciding the
"borderline cases". Others, secure in their convictions, have no such
problems - does that make them correct?
>What's a difference between Science and Objectivism?
Science can change it's understanding when confronted with evidence - it
happens all the time.
James Wright