The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy


Dragonfly

Recommended Posts

Of course, "verbal metaphysics" is closely related to, and may even be a form of, "social metaphysics."

It's not dishonesty, it's near-congenital blindness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 699
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Daniel,

I told you I would, but not at this moment. Later.

If you want to consider what you did as dishonesty, that's your evaluation. I merely reported what you did and expressed incredulity.

Here is another try:

1. Rand was describing the process in a child's mind for forming a concept from direct observation. You would call this establishing the rules of analytic truth.

2. You presented this out of context as if it were Rand's description of "length."

Let me paraphrase you from above:

I know this silly attempt to present Rand out-of-context is a rather embarrassing one for an intelligent man like myself to have made, but surely it would be better for me just to face up to this fact - after all, even highly intelligent people say stupid things sometimes. Why try to pretend otherwise?

I have no problem in calling what you did as a slip... er... let's call it an excess of zeal. I personally do not think you had a dishonest intent of fooling people. I think you were careless as all get out because your thirst to debunk Rand is great. You thought you had an easy example and this made you careless.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this silly statement about length is a rather embarrassing one for an intelligent woman like Rand to have made, but surely it would be better for you just to face up to this fact - after all, even highly intelligent people say stupid things sometimes. Why try to pretend otherwise?

It's not dishonesty (pretension), it's near-congenital first-hand reading of the passage while keeping in mind the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With that in mind, once again, I challenge you: let's take this sentence, and the whole passage around it, to a non-Objectivist forum. We'll present it as-is, and the people there can rate it on a scale from 1 (drivel) to 5 (profound insight)."

Why not just examine the context first-hand (which has to be gotten from the chapter's title and from the paragraphs above and below that in which the passage occurs)?

I would strongly advise not accepting the "challenge" suggestion. It's shot through with second-handedness--embodied, for one thing, in the choices not being simply "True" and "False," a set of alternatives that should be all that matters to one concerned with reality rather than social approval.

Edited by ashleyparkerangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>Here is another try:

>1. Rand was describing the process in a child's mind for forming a concept from direct observation. You would call this establishing the rules of analytic truth.

>2. You presented this out of context as if it were Rand's description of "length."

This is just BS. When you front up to my challenge, then we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodney:

>Looks like a proponent of CR needs warm bodies around him.

Actually, let's just look at this accusation a little more closely, because it seems Rodney needs a little lesson in true or false himself.

I've stood and argued for many years, mostly by myself, in hostile Objectivist fora where I am always outnumbered, usually considerably. While some people may dislike me for doing this, or disagree with my arguments, they cannot deny this is the case. The claim that I need to be surrounded by "warm bodies" in order to state my case is actually completely false.

Now, we can see if Rodney Rawlings, proponent of Objectivism, is bold enough to do likewise. What non-Objectivist forums have you recently been in, arguing for your beliefs against a host of others? Do tell. From what I've seen, you generally lurk in the dim corners of Objectivist fora, and rarely add to the discussion other than to plug your book or music, or issue the odd silly ad hominem. When are you ever without a nice safe, and preferably large coterie of "warm bodies" in which to chance your occassional utterances Rodney? Where?

I think we will find it is close to never and nowhere. Hence I can only assume when you accuse me of needing the support of a sympathetic mob before I dare make my case, you're simply projecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>Here is another try:

>1. Rand was describing the process in a child's mind for forming a concept from direct observation. You would call this establishing the rules of analytic truth.

>2. You presented this out of context as if it were Rand's description of "length."

This is just BS. When you front up to my challenge, then we'll see.

Daniel,

I don't know how you define BS, but the lady said, "I am going to do this." (That is, show the process of concept formation from the mind of a baby.) Then she did it.

You come along, present her words, don't mention her stated intent or baby or anything and say, "Rand says this is length and it is meaningless."

My own view of BS is much different than yours. You goofed. Badly.

I want to correct something I stated "You would call this..." I really meant, "If I were to use your jargon, I would say..." That was careless of me. See? It is a good thing to say when you are careless. It makes the meaning clear and it doesn't hurt a bit.

:)

(btw - If you read ITOE carefully, you will notice that Rand never presented a definition of length in that book. Not even in the workshops. Criticizing her as if she did is wrong. It is not accurate.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, I was making the point that that seems to be a characteristic of the CR philosophy itself--judging from your explanation of it. Whereas Objectivism rests on an independent perception of reality all the way down.

The time I have for debate is limited, but I do not shy from it when I have the time--as you well know (look over the RoR archives). I prefer to present my views in essays or long posts. And I do sometimes present my views in hostile forums. Not often. But it's not that I need to look to others for validation of truth or falsity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodney:

>Daniel, I was making the point that that seems to be a characteristic of the CR philosophy itself--judging from your explanation of it.

Rodney, you clearly don't even have the courage to back your own snark! Who do you think you're kidding with this kind of backpedalling - other than yourself?

>I do sometimes present my views in hostile forums. Not often.

Exactly my point. And this from the man who rather nastily tries to imply that I need "warm bodies" before I make an argument! Shame on you. No wonder you now are trying to back away from such a claim.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

>My own view of BS is much different than yours. You goofed. Badly.

You seem to think repeating this will make it so!

Daniel,

I won't belabor the point. The posts are up. They are well explained. A is A and all that. The words won't change. Each reader can decide for himself. Hell, if we keep going on this way, we will end up regressing to our infancy in our rhetoric.

... there is a bit of what I call the pooh-pooh head argument:

A: You're a pooh-pooh head!

B: No. You're a pooh-pooh head!

A: No. You're a pooh-pooh head!

B: No. You.

A: You.

(etc.)

Charming, but tiresome after a while.

Come on, man! We are better than that!

:)

Which forum were you talking about? Yours? If not, I would like to look around before jumping in. God knows where I am going to find the time, but hey. I'm game.

I don't know why an old thought just came to mind. In Brazil, during a dubbing session for films, there was a hippie-type dude who was dubbing for me. Right in the middle of a highly dramatic part of the film, the projector broke and while we were waiting, he told me that after a three-day drunk with a buddy, they both came to the conclusion that Rule No. 1 in the game of love is never sleep with someone crazier than you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is drivel, the context only confirms that:

Let us now examine the process of forming the simplest concept, the concept of a single attribute (chronologically, this is not the first concept that a child would grasp; but it is the simplest one epistemologically)—for instance, the concept "length." If a child considers a match, a pencil and a stick, he observes that length is the attribute they have in common, but their specific lengths differ.

So the child observes that length is an attribute, but that specific lengths differ. How can a child observe that length is an attribute and even that lengths can differ if he hasn't already formed the concept "length"? This "explanation" is begging the question.

Or, more precisely, if the process were identified in words, it would consist of the following: "Length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as 'length' that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity."

The child does not think in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words), but that is the nature of the process which his mind performs wordlessly.

That the child doesn't think literally in such words is not relevant, it's a red herring: it isn't the specific words that make the sentence nonsense, but the logical structure: the child identifies 'length' as an attribute ("How? Somehow", to paraphrase Rand), namely as that attribute that can be related to a unit of 'length'! This is a perfect example of a circular non-explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did have in mind the philosophy, and not you personally. Your revelling in strong debate in hostile milieux has been on display for years. (It is a quality I possess also. More later, but perhaps in another thread. The good Doctor Agonfly may be wishing to get back to the ASD.) But you are in hock to verbal metaphysics and this shows in your approach to establishing truth.

The question of how a child can deal with length as a quality without having the actual concept is dealt with in my math essay--but it's a simple one and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets spelled out here by someone else.

Edited by ashleyparkerangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the child observes that length is an attribute, but that specific lengths differ. How can a child observe that length is an attribute and even that lengths can differ if he hasn't already formed the concept "length"? This "explanation" is begging the question.

Dragonfly,

How do you imagine a preverbal child formulates these concepts? By already having a concept? Is he born with concepts in his head?

Rand said she was showing how an initial concept gets formed in a child's mind. You criticized her and called the passage drivel because the child did not use an already formed concept for the concept he was forming. You criticized her for doing what she said she was going to do, and not what you wanted her to do.

That the child doesn't think literally in such words is not relevant, it's a red herring: it isn't the specific words that make the sentence nonsense, but the logical structure: the child identifies 'length' as an attribute ("How? Somehow", to paraphrase Rand), namely as that attribute that can be related to a unit of 'length'! This is a perfect example of a circular non-explanation.

How? Not "somehow." Actually this "how" is given at the very beginning of the book. The child identifies a similarity and difference by direct observation, just like he does with other attributes. There are no explanations on the perceptual level. Rand was merely trying to trace the initial process of turning percepts into concepts.

This passage is not about length. It could be about height, shape or any other attribute a child sees at that age. The passage is about how he transforms his first awareness of similarity and difference of some things he observes into a concept. If Rand had written a phrase to describe length itself in the child's mind at that stage, it would be something like "that part of those things" while pointing at them.

You may disagree and argue that Rand did not achieve her stated aim at depicting the process very well. That is one thing. But it is strange to criticize her because she did not dwell on the meaning of length. Let's take a simpler example for easier understanding. Imagine that Rand had written about a child's first impressions of going to church (and let's say the child is about 5 years old). Would it make sense to blast her because she did not deal with the meaning of Christianity in that passage?

What's more, would it be accurate to take a passage from the child's first impressions of the sermon, not say that it is the fictional thoughts of a child, and present it as proof of Rand's own muddled logic about the meaning of Christianity? I say that in such a case, the critic left out something essential and made an unfair criticism.

Here is another Rand quote treated similarly for the hell of it (and this can get fun):

The giants of the intellect. . . once taught you that the earth was flat and that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. The entire history of science is a progression of exploded fallacies...

This is from Atlas Shrugged, p. 318.

So you see, Rand actually agrees with Popper about science and his falsification theory of truth after all. It is in her magnum opus.

:)

(The fact that this is a quote from a villain's book called Why Do You Think You Think? is a mere detail. Why bother mentioning it? After all, the quote is entirely Rand's own words. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly:

>That the child doesn't think literally in such words is not relevant, it's a red herring:

Yes. But Mike seems determined to accept any interpretation but the obvious one! Look once again at the sentence in question:

Rand:"I shall identify as ‘length’ that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity."

Now, we can see exactly how far Mike has to stretch to make a point, as he tries to claim that:

>MSK: This passage is not about length.

What can one say in response to this level of argument? But from his comments it seems that Mike has not grasped what the criticism is in the first place, so perhaps that is the central problem. For example, he writes:

>But it is strange to criticize her because she did not dwell on the meaning of length.

But, of course, no-one is criticising her because she didn't "dwell" on the meaning of length. The criticism is that she dresses up an empty banality in impressive, intellectual sounding verbiage - as Dragonfly says, a circular non-expanation - and it was used as an example of where scholastic thinking, such as Michael's, tends to lead to. Empty verbiage, or what Rodney calls, quite rightly, if with unwitting irony, "verbal metaphysics."

It is that simple, despite Michael's best efforts to muddy the waters.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the child observes that length is an attribute, but that specific lengths differ. How can a child observe that length is an attribute and even that lengths can differ if he hasn't already formed the concept "length"? This "explanation" is begging the question.

Rand's explanation is neither drivel nor question-begging, but I think it could be better said. Words can be used as particular referents or as general terms. For example, when a mother points to a tree and says to her child, "that's a tree," the child does not have to already possess the concept tree in order to grasp what she means. After multiple observations of different trees, then the child can form the concept, or general term, tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

How is describing a mental process an "empty banality"?

Here is the quote once again, but with comments this time (in context). From ITOE, Ch. 2 - "Concept Formation," p. 10.

Let us now examine the process of forming the simplest concept, the concept of a single attribute (chronologically, this is not the first concept that a child would grasp; but it is the simplest one epistemologically)—for instance, the concept "length."

[No definition or description of length is given by Rand at this time since the child is making his first conscious awareness of this attribute. However, Rand does take it for granted that all the people reading this passage know what length is. She is not writing a first grade primer.]

If a child considers a match, a pencil and a stick, he observes that length is the attribute they have in common, but their specific lengths differ.

[He looks at three things and sees that there is something similar, that all of them have one part of their shape bigger than the other parts when going in a straight line.]

The difference is one of measurement.

[He doesn't know about measurement yet, but once he notices length, the idea of "bigger" makes measurement implicit. There is no comparison of size without measurement.]

In order to form the concept "length," the child's mind retains the attribute and omits its particular measurements.

[He is not aware that this is happening yet. He is only aware of the focus on the similarity between the match, pencil and stick, and that they are all similar in that they all have one part of their shape bigger than the other parts when going in a straight line, but all three things have different sizes and these parts are also different sizes.]

Or, more precisely, if the process were identified in words, it would consist of the following: "Length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as 'length' that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity."

[This can be put in simpler words for those who don't like big words or don't understand them. "The part of a thing's shape that is bigger in a straight line is similar to another thing's shape that is bigger in a straight line, and size does not matter. When something has a part that is bigger in a straight line, I shall call it to myself "length," and although one length can be compared against another length, any size will do and I will still call it length."]

The child does not think in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words), but that is the nature of the process which his mind performs wordlessly.

[since this is a wordless mental process, the big word version and the simplified version are both nothing more than approximations. I could Dr. Seuss it, if necessary, for those who still have comprehension difficulty.]

And that is the principle which his mind follows, when, having grasped the concept "length" by observing the three objects, he uses it to identify the attribute of length in a piece of string, a ribbon, a belt, a corridor or a street.

[Once the child has seen that some objects have a part of their shape that is bigger in a straight line than the other parts, he notices that other objects have one, too.]

The ONLY way this can be considered as an "empty banality" is if describing the mental process itself is considered an "empty banality." It might be that describing mental processes for some people have no value, but if that is the case, then Popper's description of his falsification theory based on logic is likewise an empty banality, unless a completely different standard is applied to him. And if arbitrary standards become the case—using one standard for Rand and another for Popper for no reason other than liking one over the other—then if logic suddenly gets used, the criticism of Rand's passage is what actually becomes an empty banality.

Maybe it's all an empty banality? Does anything really mean anything anyway? Even our very existence? Woe is me...

(Wait a minute! That's another philosophy...)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, when a mother points to a tree and says to her child, "that's a tree," the child does not have to already possess the concept tree in order to grasp what she means. After multiple observations of different trees, then the child can form the concept, or general term, tree.

I think it would help to make a sharp distinction between 'concept' and 'word'. The concept lives in one's brain, as a visualization or neural net, or something. The word refers to the the concept. So repeated pointing at the object (tree) coupled with repeated verbalizing 'tree' begins the building of associative structures in the brain that connect the lower order nervous abstractions (concepts) to the higher order verbal abstractions (words).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now