.

Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance. Furthermore, many of her supporters would not permit modifications or additions to her philosophical system, leading some to label Rand as a cult leader.

The best and most philosophically sound method of determinning the truth isn't scientific method.

Scientific method can be corrupted, a person can leave out the facts he does not like in full knowledge of doing so. A person can simply lie in a complex manner to fool those who put their trust in them and will not question them for whatever reason.

What we need is scientific method, but scientific method under intense scrutiny. Even if everyone agrees with a certain declaration, people must intentionally criticise it with obsessive fervor to ensure it is correct.

Believe it or not we need whackos questionning evolution, just as much as we needed whackos who questionned god's existence.

The best method of determinning the truth is free speech and criticism on he main philosophical tenets of the truth, being reason, logic and science. It appears that criticism is easier than creating an elaborate scheme to prove something, thus it is extremely likely that anyone will have the intelligence to create a lie that no one can debunk.

Then, of course, the only thing we have to fear is tyranny.