Two Kinds of "Induction": Important similarities and trivial differences

[Roger Bissell]

As to why Rand used measurement as fundamental to concept formation, I can only speculate. Perhaps it was "marketing". Perhaps she accepted a corrupted definition of measurement -- see here: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Jetton...asurement.shtml

In any case it's clear to me that much of concept formation does not require measurement omission. There is some measurement omission, but it is overwhelmed by qualitative omission. I cover the topic much more extensively here: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/ad.../JettonOaM3.PDF

Excellent articles and a must read for every Objectivist who wants to discuss measurement and measurement omission.

As is Stephen Boydstun's excellent essay "Universals and Measurement" in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring 2004). He and Merlin were in disagreement about measurement in re Rand's theory of concepts at the time of the RoR discussion (linked from Merlin's RoR essay above), and I assume they still are. I think that both of their essays are provocative and well argued, but I happen to agree with Stephen's position. His JARS essay can probably still be obtained in electronic form by request from him at this email address: boydstun@rcn.com

BTW, Stephen's essay has the dubious distinction of having been given a scathing -- scatological, yet -- review by the incorrigible smear-meister, Fred Weiss on one of our favorite ortho-sites: Poodle Poop on this discussion thread. Scroll down to post #68 and follow along for a truly magnificent display of rogue elephant tap-dancing.

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

BTW, Stephen's essay has the dubious distinction of having been given a scathing -- scatological, yet -- review by the incorrigible smear-meister, Fred Weiss on one of our favorite ortho-sites: Poodle Poop on this discussion thread. Scroll down to post #68 and follow along for a truly magnificent display of rogue elephant tap-dancing.

REB

Fred should stick to selling books. He has no comprehension of science whatsoever. He thinks that just because we can use Newtonian Gravitational laws to send wessels to the Moon, that Newtonian Gravitation has not been falsified. It has. It so happens that Newton's Law of Gravitation is wrong, but it is close enough to right to be used for celestial navigation in a weak gravitational field.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just for the record, I have no problem saying Rand was "ignorant" about higher math.

This is worlds different, though, than calling her an "ignoramus" or "illiterate" or "uneducated" about math or things like that, or even saying she was "totally ignorant" about it (and science). All of these terms have been used and I not only object on the grounds of acrimony (although I often do see that as a response to her own, but still, that is not a habit worth aping), I object to it on the grounds of accuracy.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Just for the record, I have no problem saying Rand was "ignorant" about higher math.

This is worlds different, though, than calling her an "ignoramus" or "illiterate" or "uneducated" about math or things like that, or even saying she was "totally ignorant" about it (and science). All of these terms have been used and I not only object on the grounds of acrimony (although I often do see that as a response to her own, but still, that is not a habit worth aping), I object to it on the grounds of accuracy.

Michael

I think that any post calling Rand an "ignoramus" based on any of the things she said about math (or based on her writing a FICTIONAL NOVEL in which a motor ran based on static electricity) are simple examples of malice toward Rand. They do not reflect well on those doing the namecalling.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

I think that any post calling Rand an "ignoramus" based on any of the things she said about math (or based on her writing a FICTIONAL NOVEL in which a motor ran based on static electricity) are simple examples of malice toward Rand. They do not reflect well on those doing the namecalling.

Alfonso

Wrong! It is not malice. It is annoyance with an unqualified person shooting her mouth off about mathematics of which she knew nothing. I never faulted Rand for a word she said concerning capitalism or politics. She and her lap-dog Pope Leonard also said unkind things about modern physics, most of them untrue and some of them barely half true. Rand had a bad habit of speaking with authority in fields in which she had none. And her scholarship in matters of philosophy left a good deal to be desired also.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 3, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I think that any post calling Rand an "ignoramus" based on any of the things she said about math (or based on her writing a FICTIONAL NOVEL in which a motor ran based on static electricity) are simple examples of malice toward Rand. They do not reflect well on those doing the namecalling.

Alfonso

Wrong! It is not malice. It is annoyance with an unqualified person shooting her mouth off about mathematics of which she knew nothing. I never faulted Rand for a word she said concerning capitalism or politics. She and her lap-dog Pope Leonard also said unkind things about modern physics, most of them untrue and some of them barely half true. Rand had a bad habit of speaking with authority in fields in which she had none. And her scholarship in matters of philosophy left a good deal to be desired also.

Ba'al Chatzaf

After all this stuff about induction and deduction I'd think it'd be time for REDUCTION.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

BTW, Stephen's essay has the dubious distinction of having been given a scathing -- scatological, yet -- review by the incorrigible smear-meister, Fred Weiss on one of our favorite ortho-sites: Poodle Poop on this discussion thread. Scroll down to post #68 and follow along for a truly magnificent display of rogue elephant tap-dancing.

REB

That Fred Weiss thread is the funniest thing I've read in yonks. What a world class eejit.

[John Dailey]

DB:

~ Your response (post #51) to Alfonso's question to GS, "What does it mean, in your view, to 'start with some mutually agreed upon terms.' In what sense can we [agree on] AGREED on terms while those terms are UNDEFINED?" with

Alfonso, GS just means that we should try to avoid our arguments resting on special definitions for our terms.

~ Given your comments to REB re his about what Einstein would have thought (with Baal's kudos--posts #42/43), this response of yours certainly seems shades thereof re what GS 'meant'; akin to Alfonso, I'm confused as to what you mean by considering UNDEFINED as meaning merely avoiding 'special' (as opposed to non-special?) definitions. I take 'undefined' as NO defining occuring; not a 'special' one being proposed. (How is 'special' considered a meaning of 'not' or 'un-'?) --- Further, NO defining raises the...ignored...question of there being any 'agreed' referents for the hoped for 'agreement' of term-meanings, or as Alfonso implies, there is no sense to the idea therein.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read through some of that Noodlefood thread (2004) but could not read it all. At the time Hsieh was still friends with Chris Sciabarra and Fred Weiss asked her openly to consider him an enemy of Objectivism for publishing excrement. It has come to pass, but with a smokescreen.

First she and others published Chris's private correspondence without authorization (about as immoral act as can be found in terms of property rights) and made an amazing case that he was acting immoral because he expressed negative opinions about her qua dogmatist to a friend, but had not talked to her about it. Before the smokescreen I do not recall her saying JARS published excrement. After the smokescreen, I have no doubt she now agrees with that assessment.

I wonder why bother with the smokescreen at all? Especially one as petty, immoral and incompetent as she did? The only thing I can think of is that it was some kind of public confession of atonement by denouncing the devil and his prior influence on her before she was saved by turning her life over to Peikoff (God's sole begotten Son, er... Rand's heir) so she could be properly baptized.

I was interested to see Steve Jackson's comments. He writes a lot of reviews of Objectivist material on Amazon and I generally find his comments well worth reading. I found it funny that his objections were continually distorted, especially criticizing Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand for making incomplete mentions of Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand and Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and for suggesting that the reader was being induced in the work to consider only ARI approved sources (apropos, just look at the bibliography of that book!). It seems incredible to me that anyone would question the need to correctly reference a source in a work of so-called scholarship, but there Mr. Jackson was, being attacked for raising the issue.

Fred Weiss, of course, never fails to entertain. But it is entertainment with a drop of poison. After all, what he requested of Hsieh was heeded. Seeing him try to justify condemning Stephen Boydstun's article by blank-out was very funny. He published the abstract to the essay and ASSUMED that Noodlefood readers would automatically blank-out like he did because it had some big words in it. They would look at it, not even try to think, then pronounce it gobbledygook. Well, at least he knew one half of his audience. His tap dancing after being called on it by people who actually understood the essay was quite a show.

Interestingly enough, Fred admires Bob Kolker, our own dear Ba'al Chatzaf. (How's that for character assassination by association? ) See here. To quote the inimitable Mr. Weiss:

I will say that it is amusing to read your posts on the "Objectivist Living" forum - a pseudo-Objectivist (pro-Branden/Kelley) site where Bob often makes more sense than they do.

I am not sure who he is addressing since he seems to be addressing Bob, but then refers to him in the third person. Well, whatever. There it is.

Note to Bob: I will not judge you by your admirers, but I have this ace up my sleeve if things ever get out of hand.

Michael

[John Dailey]

DB: ADDENDUM:

~ In your last post I referred to above, you proceed to 'explain' how to avoid 'defining' by exemplifying via observing 'agreeable upon' referents and giving 'labels' to them as a way to employ the scientific method.

~ Isn't this precisely the starting point of linguistic-communication and concept-formation which Rand pointed out as Ostensive defining (without which, of course, all definition-making is 'circular' as argued later, since such is then using words as ONLY referring to useage of other...'agreed on'...words)?

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Note to Bob: I will not judge you by your admirers, but I have this ace up my sleeve if things ever get out of hand.

Michael

Phredd craps all over me in HPO

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Daniel Barnes]

JD:

~ Isn't this precisely the starting point of linguistic-communication and concept-formation which Rand pointed out as Ostensive defining (without which, of course, all definition-making is 'circular' as argued later, since such is then using words as ONLY referring to useage of other...'agreed on'...words)?

See my reply to Merlin somewhere or other, don't have time to look now.

Ostensive definition is fine, but doesn't resolve differences of opinion as to meaning.

For "true democracy" you point to the States. I point to Britain. Someone points to Germany. Saddam points to his Iraq, where everyone voted (for him). That's as ostensive as all-get-out. Which one's the "true" definition? The problem gets handed back to a verbal argument again, as you correctly realise is circular (and potentially infinitely regressive).

There's no logical way to resolve such disagreement. Now, observe that Objectivism has strong differences of opinion over what key terms mean, and seeks to rewrite the dictionary so ordinary terms like "selfish", "sacrifice", "altruism" etc etc are only permitted to have the officially approved Randian shades of meaning. (Much Randian argument relies upon such pre-tooled definitions). It is little wonder, therefore, that Objectivism's arguments have trouble gaining purchase in the common discourse. For that reason alone - let alone logical considerations - it is worth reconsidering this position.

But there is more. Ultimately this illogical belief in the undisputable "true meanings " of words is a source of authoritarianism, even though Rand wrongly believed the opposite. Joseph Rowlands, unwittingly imitating the Marxist project of "debourgeoisification" of language, has already exhibited this unhealthy enthusiasm here. For Rand got this wrong: the authoritarian language project is not to remove the true meanings of words, but to control their meanings, and only permit official meanings to exist, to permit only the Official Dictionary to be used in constructing arguments. To remove linguistic freedom, along with all the others.

Hence here are yet more excellent, if more subtle, reasons for moving the debate away from debates over the exact meanings of words, and towards theories, problems, proposals,and their consequences.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now, observe that Objectivism has strong differences of opinion over what key terms mean, and seeks to rewrite the dictionary so ordinary terms like "selfish", "sacrifice", "altruism" etc etc are only permitted to have the officially approved Randian shades of meaning. (Much Randian argument relies upon such pre-tooled definitions). It is little wonder, therefore, that Objectivism's arguments have trouble gaining purchase in the common discourse. For that reason alone - let alone logical considerations - it is worth reconsidering this position.

But there is more. Ultimately this illogical belief in the undisputable "true meanings " of words is a source of authoritarianism, even though Rand wrongly believed the opposite. Joseph Rowlands, unwittingly imitating the Marxist project of "debourgeoisification" of language, has already exhibited this unhealthy enthusiasm here. For Rand got this wrong: the authoritarian language project is not to remove the true meanings of words, but to control their meanings, and only permit official meanings to exist, to permit only the Official Dictionary to be used in constructing arguments. To remove linguistic freedom, along with all the others.

Hence here are yet more excellent, if more subtle, reasons for moving the debate away from debates over the exact meanings of words, and towards theories, problems, proposals,and their consequences.

Daniel,

Nice try, but this is a misrepresentation. Rand was specific about what she meant in her own works. This was not about any rewriting of the dictionary. I don't know how many times she used the phrase, "in this context, ............ means ............" I do not recall her ever stating that her shades of meaning were the only ones, especially since she constantly used several shades. And, as I and others have pointed out, the shades of meaning you object to have existed prior to her.

And puhleeze, do not confuse that confusing dictionary of Rowlands, or his reason for making it, with anything Rand ever wrote or did.

Like it or not, Objectivists do not embrace vagueness of meaning as an epistemological ideal as does Popper. They never will. They hold clarity as an epistemological ideal.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Nice try, but this is a misrepresentation.

Nice try, but yours is a weak refutation. Here's why:

This was not about any rewriting of the dictionary....I do not recall her ever stating that her shades of meaning were the only ones, especially since she constantly used several shades. And, as I and others have pointed out, the shades of meaning you object to have existed prior to her.

Gee, I wonder what she meant by "false" definitions then?

And puhleeze, do not confuse that confusing dictionary of Rowlands, or his reason for making it, with anything Rand ever wrote or did.

Gee, if it has nothing whatsoever to do with "anything Rand ever wrote or did", I wonder why he made it such a feature of his pro-Objectivist philosophy site then? Maybe he is yet another Objectivist who doesn't understand Objectivism as well as you do.

Like it or not, Objectivists do not embrace vagueness of meaning as an epistemological ideal as does Popper. They never will. They hold clarity as an epistemological ideal.

Popper doesn't hold vagueness as an epistemological "ideal." Where does he say that? You've just made that up. He simply accepts it as an epistemological reality, and proposes the best logical way of dealing with that reality.

I know you don't want to accept this particular fact of reality, but that's up to you.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gee, I wonder what she meant by "false" definitions then?

Daniel,

Hell, that's easy. It's a definition for an existent that does not correspond to the existent's reality. How about a quote (ITOE, p. 201)?

For example, if one took the capacity to run as man's essential characteristic and defined him as "a running animal," the next step would be the attempt to eliminate "non-essential" distinctions and to form a single, higher-level concept out of "running entities," such as a running man, a running river, a running stocking, a running movie, a running commentary, etc. (on some such grounds as the notion that entities have no epistemological priority over actions). The result would be cognitive stultification and epistemological disintegration.

Cognitively, such an attempt would produce nothing but a bad hash of equivocations, shoddy metaphors and unacknowledged "stolen" concepts. Epistemologically, it would produce the atrophy of the capacity to discriminate, and the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data—which means: the retrogression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man, (This is happening today in certain schools of biology and psychology, whose false definition of the concept "learning" has led to attempts to equate the "behavior" of a piece of magnetized iron with the "behavior" of man.)

Of course, here is a perfect example where "essential" is used differently by Rand than by Aristotle (who claims that intuition is needed to understand). Be real careful that you do not read this excerpt as Rand claiming that magnetized iron does not exhibit behavior.

If you understand her meaning correctly, you will understand that she is against defining life as a non-vital substance like magnetized iron. She is not trying to appropriate the word "learning." If the word learning were used with one definition for life and another definition for magnetized iron, she would have no problem with that. Now, of course if you are only interested in debunking her, why bother understanding her correctly first? Anything goes, right? Let it all hang out.

Gee, if it has nothing whatsoever to do with "anything Rand ever wrote or did", I wonder why he made it such a feature of his pro-Objectivist philosophy site then? Maybe he is yet another Objectivist who doesn't understand Objectivism as well as you do.

Er... I suggest doing something a bit less vague, to coin a phrase. Why not compare the definitions given by Rowlands against those given by Rand? I have. They are a mess. If you want a quick way to do a few comparisons, go to his site where the dictionary is here, choose a term, then go to K.W. Didion's ITOE study site here to locate the page number for the term in ITOE, or get The Ayn Rand Lexicon and look it up. The results are nothing short of amazing. I know there is no owner for the term "Objectivism," but a dictionary like that should at least bear SOME resemblance.

But if you are really curious and really do "wonder why he made it such a feature of his pro-Objectivist philosophy site," why are you asking me? You should ask him. I am sure he would be glad to answer you. Of course if you are only being snide... (sorry, I don't know why that thought just came to mind and popped out like that... )

Popper doesn't hold vagueness as an epistemological "ideal." Where does he say that? You've just made that up. He simply accepts it as an epistemological reality, and proposes the best logical way of dealing with that reality.

I know you don't want to accept this particular fact of reality, but that's up to you.

Here is what Popper wrote as posted on your own site:

We are always conscious that our terms are a little vague (since we have learnt to use them only in practical applications) and we reach precision not by reducing their penumbra of vagueness, but rather by keeping well within it, by carefully phrasing our sentences in such a way that the possible shades of meaning of our terms do not matter. This is how we avoid quarrelling about words.

The view that the precision of science and of scientific language depends upon the precision of its terms is certainly very plausible, but it is none the less, I believe, a mere prejudice. The precision of a language depends, rather, just upon the fact that it takes care not to burden its terms with the task of being precise.

Uhm... let's see. Vagueness of definition sounds like an ideal to me in this quote. (It is the ONE TRUE WAY to precision.) Sounds like Popper is talking about epistemology to me. I wonder how on earth I managed to come up with that idea of vagueness being an "epistemological ideal." Must be something in the water...

Your turn.

Wanna do a competition on seeing who can get snarkier in addition to the ideas? It might be fun.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

Now, of course if you are only interested in debunking her, why bother understanding her correctly first? Anything goes, right? Let it all hang out.

But the quote you provided - which is itself very strange, incidentally - supports my argument. Rand is saying you're not allowed to use such-and-such a definition or else shocking epistemological things will happen! You'll be reduced to the helpless terror of primitive man, no less! It's just silliness, of course, but merely reinforces my point.

Why not compare the definitions given by Rowlands against those given by Rand? I have. They are a mess.

Once again, how is this contrary to my point? So Rowlands doesn't rewrite the dictionary in a way that perfectly agrees with Rand rewriting the dictionary. Shock, horror. Epistemological chaos! Rowlands is reduced to the helpless terror of primitive man!

(Actually you might agree with that...;-))

Uhm... let's see. Vagueness of definition sounds like an ideal to me in this quote. (It is the ONE TRUE WAY to precision.) Sounds like Popper is talking about epistemology to me. I wonder how on earth I managed to come up with that idea of vagueness being an "epistemological ideal."

I wonder how on earth you did it too. Popper's merely talking about the way things are:

"We are always conscious that our terms are a little vague (since we have learnt to use them only in practical applications) and we reach precision not by reducing their penumbra of vagueness, but rather by keeping well within it..."

And the best way to operate, given this situation. He's not saying "Vagueness is ideal! It's the greatest!" as you seem to think. He's saying, words are always a little vague, so get over it.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

You still didn't get what Rand meant and I suspect it is in the same manner you feel I didn't get what Popper meant.

But just to be contrary, let us continue with the Popper quote where he says vagueness of meaning is the best epistemology (the ideal) and see how he illustrates it (once again, see here):

A term like 'sand-dune' or 'wind' is certainly very vague. (How many inches high must a little sand-hill be in order to be called 'sand-dune'? How quickly must the air move in order to be called 'wind'?) However, for many of the geologist's purposes, these terms are quite sufficiently precise; and for other purposes, when a higher degree of differentiation is needed, he can always say 'dunes between 4 and 30 feet high' or 'wind of a velocity of between 20 and 40 miles an hour'. And the position in the more exact sciences is analogous. In physical measurements, for instance, we always take care to consider the range within which there may be an error; and precision does not consist in trying to reduce this range to nothing, or in pretending that there is no such range, but rather in its explicit recognition.

Oh my God! He wouldn't be saying vagueness is MEASUREMENT OMISSION would he?

Nah. That would be too much like right... I mean Rand.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

You still didn't get what Rand meant and I suspect it is in the same manner you feel I didn't get what Popper meant.

But just to be contrary, let us continue with the Popper quote where he says vagueness of meaning is the best epistemology (the ideal) and see how he illustrates it (once again, see here):

A term like 'sand-dune' or 'wind' is certainly very vague. (How many inches high must a little sand-hill be in order to be called 'sand-dune'? How quickly must the air move in order to be called 'wind'?) However, for many of the geologist's purposes, these terms are quite sufficiently precise; and for other purposes, when a higher degree of differentiation is needed, he can always say 'dunes between 4 and 30 feet high' or 'wind of a velocity of between 20 and 40 miles an hour'. And the position in the more exact sciences is analogous. In physical measurements, for instance, we always take care to consider the range within which there may be an error; and precision does not consist in trying to reduce this range to nothing, or in pretending that there is no such range, but rather in its explicit recognition.

Even where a term has made trouble, as for instance the term 'simultaneity' in physics, it was not because its meaning was imprecise or ambiguous, but rather because of some intuitive theory which induced us to burden the term with too much meaning, or with too 'precise' a meaning, rather than with too little. What Einstein found in his analysis of simultaneity was that, when speaking of simultaneous events, physicists made a false assumption which would have been unchallengeable were there signals of infinite velocity. The fault was not that they did not mean anything, or that their meaning was ambiguous, or the term not precise enough; what Einstein found was, rather, that the elimination of a theoretical assumption, unnoticed so far because of its intuitive self-evidence, was able to remove a difficulty which had arisen in science. Accordingly, he was not really concerned with a question of the meaning of a term, but rather with the truth of a theory. It is very unlikely that it would have led to much if someone had started, apart from a definite physical problem, to improve the concept of simultaneity by analysing its 'essential] meaning', or even by analysing what physicists 'really mean' when they speak of simultaneity.

Oh my God! He wouldn't be saying vagueness is MEASUREMENT OMISSION would he?

Nah. That would be too much like right... I mean Rand.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh my God! He [Popper] wouldn't be saying vagueness is MEASUREMENT OMISSION would he?

Nah. That would be too much like right... I mean Rand.

Michael

Oh, my God! I can't stand this. No, Michael, that is not at all what he is saying. (Nor, btw, was Rand saying that "vagueness is measurement omission.")

In the example he gives of "wind," he's saying that geophysicists don't burden their discourse with trying to establish the "exact" (let alone, a la Rand, the "true") definition of "wind." They know that the word "wind" has vague meanings -- what's the difference, e.g., between a "wind" and a "breeze" and a "gale," etc.? Instead of trying to give a precise verbal definition of "wind," they specify the speed range they're talking about -- between X and Y mph, e.g. This is what gives their formulations exactitude, NOT worrying about what "wind" does/should mean.

In the issue of "simultaneity," he's saying that it was NOT through debates about the meaning of "simultaneity" that Einstein was led to his breakthrough but instead through noticing and questioning a theoretic presupposition. It was theory that he was challenging, not the meaning of a word.

I, like Daniel, don't know where you're getting that Popper holds vagueness as "an epistemological ideal." He considered scientific discourse admirably precise by comparison to philosophic. He's saying that the way scientific discourse achieves its precision isn't through arguments over the meanings of words -- the words are held loose; it's in the formulae and predictions that precision is sought. He is contrasting how philosophers and scientists go about their pursuits. (Rand very much went about it in the way he objected to in philosophic discourse, which is why Rand was very much an "essentialist" in the approach to definition he's criticizing, despite her difference with Aristotle over what the "essential" characteristic of a concept is and how it's ascertained. The difference between Aristotle and Rand on that part is NON-essential to the similarity which is the focus of Popper's critique of what he calls "essentialism." I've documented this at length, but I guess to no avail.)

Ellen

___

Edited October 4, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

If you can get past the jargon, you are describing concepts as made by Objectivists.

Even essence-wise. I do presume that Popper, by the term wind, has some "essence" in mind so that even if he is vague, he is not talking about a foot or a donut. So what is the "vagueness"? Measurements. And what is the preciseness? Measurement of some feature (er... essence).

Zero, as far as I remember, is a measurement. Time can be measured. Simultaneous is zero time elapsed. Need I go on?

I am sorry to pop your bubble that Popper was God and Rand the idiot, but Rand and Popper were talking about the same thing from different angles. You just don't like her jargon or way of putting things and this gets in the way of you seeing the ideas behind them.

Look behind the words and you will see this. Maybe Rand and Popper had different meanings for the words they used. For example, for Rand, a concept is vague in the sense Popper is saying (free of measurements). This allows measurements to be taken. Rand just doesn't use the word "vague," but "omission" instead to describe this characteristic. You are making the same mistake as you did with "essence."

Or carry on as usual.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Lordy, lordy; no straigtening it out.

I do believe, Michael, that if Rand were here to read your presentations of her theories, she'd want your head on a platter, since I don't think you even understand Rand.

As to your comment about "simultaneous," you haven't a clue what the issue was. (And, no, zero isn't a "measurement"; it's a number. One can't measure nothing, if you're thinking of "zero" as meaning "nothing.")

I should learn better than to try.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Channeling Rand and using pure snark, now? That's getting pretty desperate.

I gotta run. Traveling. Have fun.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Just a note for the record, lest anyone take Michael's remark "I am sorry to pop your bubble that Popper was God and Rand the idiot" as accurately reflecting my views:

I do not believe "that Popper was God"; nor that Rand was an idiot. I never even read Popper before in my life until the fairly recent past. I think he was a significantly better philosopher than Rand, but this doesn't mean that I think Rand was an idiot. I think, however, that Michael isn't even correctly presenting Rand's theories, let alone Popper's.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

I do not believe "that Popper was God"; nor that Rand was an idiot. I never even read Popper before in my life until the fairly recent past. I think he was a significantly better philosopher than Rand, but this doesn't mean that I think Rand was an idiot.

___

Ellen,

This seems to be a rather odd statement. If philosophy has great value the implication is that Popper has suddenly brought great value into your life. What is that? If philosophy doesn't have great value then one way or another he's just another example of academic twit except, perhaps, to scientists.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do not believe "that Popper was God"; nor that Rand was an idiot. I never even read Popper before in my life until the fairly recent past. I think he was a significantly better philosopher than Rand, but this doesn't mean that I think Rand was an idiot.

___

Ellen,

This seems to be a rather odd statement. If philosophy has great value the implication is that Popper has suddenly brought great value into your life. What is that? If philosophy doesn't have great value then one way or another he's just another example of academic twit except, perhaps, to scientists.

--Brant

Brant,

The comment seems to me "rather odd." It comes from some premise-set, I suppose one might say, that is so foreign to my emotional frame, I can't relate to it. Honestly, it sounds to me like you're talking about some sort of attitude of religion, rather than about philosophy. Reading Popper is certainly bringing "value" to my life. I find him a joy to read, with his lucidity and breadth and real knowledge of science, which Rand so lacked, with his knowing what the issues are all about and how they got to be that way -- which I think she didn't understand. As Hospers said, she did philosophy wearing "seven-league boots." She swept over the landscape in bold strokes, getting enormous amounts of the details wrong. Possibly your referring to "academic twit(s)" is indicative of your never having examined the details either. Rand did serious injustice to a lot of thinkers, in my opinion.

What Popper says about how science in fact proceeds, I think is on target. Of course I've known of his "falsifiability demarcation" for years and years. It's pretty much accepted by scientists, whether they've read Popper or not. I'm hoping to have time over the next couple months to read his Objective Knowledge. I think it might hold clues to some issues I continue to puzzle about. (I don't want to go into details; I don't have time for lengthy discussion.)

As to Rand herself, she never has been to me what she is to a lot of persons I've known who consider themselves Objectivists. I was thoroughly thunderstruck (though one can't literally be "struck" by thunder) by Atlas Shrugged when I first read it, but largely for literary reasons. I wasn't lightning struck, like those were who found reading it a kind of conversion experience. I didn't feel in a state of confusion about the world when I encountered Rand; I wasn't in search of something to "explain it all" to me. I saw problems even then in some of the speech. In the sense in which you seem to mean "great value," Rand didn't bring that to my life. She brought interest, but she was hardly alone among thinkers in doing this.

In short, I think your question assumes something about my life and emotional gestalt which just isn't accurate.

Despite my not considering Rand any emotional flywheel to my existence, however, it really irks me to see her theories -- or any thinker's theories -- badly misrepresented, especially by someone claiming to be in agreement with those theories. I have studied Rand in depth and detail over the years, and I don't recognize her epistemology in Michael's exegeses. I think he's ignoring major portions of what she said and not well understanding the parts he's emphasizing. (And I think he's "out in left field," as it were, in what he says about Popper's "Two Kinds of Definition." Among the problems is his switches in what he takes Popper to mean -- e.g., first accusing Popper of holding vagueness as an epistemological ideal and then a post or two later claiming that "vagueness [a la Popper] is measurement omission," i.e., turning Popper into a crypto-Randian or Rand into a crypto-Popperian, or something to one or the other or both effects.)

Ellen