Arbitrary

An arbitrary claim is one asserted without evidence of any kind. Objectivism holds that such a claim is neither true nor false but outside the true-false classification entirely, and that the proper response is to dismiss it rather than to argue with it — a position that does more work in the epistemology than almost any other single point.

“An arbitrary idea must be given the exact treatment its nature demands. One must treat it as though nothing had been said.”
   ~ Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapter 5

Three categories, not two

The usual assumption is that any claim is either true or false and the only question is which. Objectivism inserts a prior question: has anything been offered at all?

• True — the evidence indicates that the claim identifies a fact.
• False — the evidence indicates that it does not.
• Arbitrary — no evidence has been offered in either direction, so neither verdict applies.

The third category is not a polite way of saying "unproved". An unproved claim with some evidence behind it is possible or probable, and sits on the continuum of knowledge. An arbitrary claim is off the continuum, because truth and falsehood are relations between an identification and the facts, and where nothing connects the assertion to any fact there is no relation to evaluate. See Truth and Certainty.

Rand's ground for this is that cognition is a process with requirements. A string of words uttered in defiance of them is not a weak contribution to the discussion; it is not a contribution to it.

Why dismissal, not refutation

Attempting to refute an arbitrary claim concedes the thing that matters — that the claim has earned a response — and it cannot succeed, because there is nothing to engage with.

Consider: "There might be a tiny moon orbiting the Earth that nobody has detected. You can't prove there isn't." Nothing has been offered in support. If this obliges an answer, so does every variant anyone can generate, without limit and at no cost to the person generating them. The onus of proof is on the person asserting, and it does not transfer by being ignored. See Proof.

This is the manoeuvre Objectivism identifies behind most attacks on certainty. The skeptic does not usually produce counter-evidence; he produces a bare possibility and asks how you can rule it out. Grounds for doubt must themselves be evidence. Mere conceivability is not evidence, and admitting it as such would make every conclusion permanently unsettled by anyone with an imagination. See Skepticism and Context.

What counts as arbitrary

The test is the absence of evidence, not the strangeness of the claim or its subject matter. A surprising claim with evidence behind it is to be evaluated; a mundane claim with none is arbitrary.

Some claims are additionally constructed so that no evidence could ever bear on them — the assertion of something defined as beyond all human means of detection. These are arbitrary in a stronger sense: not merely unsupported as offered, but insulated in principle from support. Objectivism treats appeals to revelation, intuition and "just knowing" as falling here, since each claims a means of knowledge that cannot be checked by anything. See Mysticism and Faith.

Common misunderstandings

• That calling a claim arbitrary is a way of avoiding it. The classification is itself a judgment, and it can be contested by producing evidence. What it refuses is the demand that unsupported assertions be treated as live options.
• That an arbitrary claim might turn out to be true. The words might later be asserted with evidence, at which point it is a different epistemological item. As asserted, with nothing behind it, it has no truth value to turn out.
• That this makes it impossible to prove a negative. Objectivism's answer is that no one is obliged to. The burden lies with the assertion, and an unmet burden ends the matter.
• That the arbitrary is the same as the false. Treating it as false would grant that it said something determinate. It did not.
• That an idea entertained hypothetically is arbitrary. Framing a possibility in order to look for evidence is ordinary method. Asserting it as a claim while having none is the error.

See also

• Certainty · Truth · Knowledge · Proof · Context · Fact
• Logic · Reason · Objectivity · Induction
• Skepticism · Mysticism · Faith · Subjectivism
• Fallacies · Fallacy of the stolen concept · Floating Abstraction

Discussion

• "The only thing I know is that I don't know anything"
• How does Objectivism disprove skepticism?
• Arguing with atheists

References

• Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapter 5 — the fullest treatment of the arbitrary.
• Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The Objectivist, 1967.

External links

• Arbitrary at the Ayn Rand Lexicon