A. Objectivity: What Is It?
Smith’s theory of knowledge, which is based upon the epistemological work of Ayn Rand, is
essentially
realist.8 Smith contends that physical objects, events, relationships, and ideas (including man-
made rules) really exist, and that each of these “existents” has a specific nature that is independent of
human beings’ “observations, attitudes, and beliefs about [their] nature.” 9 Human beings can gain
accurate knowledge of the nature of particular existents, but
existents are what they are, regardless of
what we believe that they are. Thus, we need to develop a method of thinking that can “sift[] true beliefs
from untrue and valid inferences from invalid.” 10
The method of thinking Smith offers is
objectivity. Objectivity is a mental discipline that consists
in pursuing “the actual nature of the specific object or phenomena in question,” relying solely on
“relevant evidence and logical inferences therefrom.” 11 Identifying the nature of existents entails
identifying their essential characteristics — the fundamental common denominators that distinguish them
from other existents.12 Objectivity is empirical — it relies upon observational evidence rather than
intuition or speculation.13 Objectivity is hierarchical — one cannot understand complex ideas like
“property” without understanding other ideas upon which they rest.14 Finally, objectivity is contextual —
what evidence is relevant to a given inquiry depends upon the purpose of the inquiry, and what one is
justified in believing about a particular object or phenomenon depends upon the facts of which one is
aware.15
If we discover that our “earlier knowledge was incomplete in certain respects,” 16 we must “alter
our conclusions, however objectively formed those conclusions were at the time they were first made.” 17
Smith takes time to address and dispel potential misconceptions concerning objectivity. First,
objectivity is an active process. Existents, be they physical objects or “high-level abstractions” like legal
concepts, do not simply reveal their nature to us — grasping their nature requires diligent, intellectually
engaged effort.18 Second, objectivity is not determined by consensus, even informed consensus.19
Whether a person has “ground[ed] their thinking in observation of reality” and “remain[ed] faithful to
what they observe through the conscientious use of logic” does not turn on who they are or who agrees
with them.20
Third, objectivity is not infallible. We can come to erroneous conclusions, despite our most
disciplined efforts to “get reality right.” 21 A conclusion that is objective is not necessarily correct. It is,
however, the product of a method that gives us the “firmest ground possible for our conclusions to hug
the facts.” 22 To assert that a conclusion is objective is to assert that “in the state of knowledge
at the relevant time,” the conclusion “most fully and accurately reflects the nature of the existents in
question and the relationships between them.” 23
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2798715
. 