McCaskey: How Best to Attack Ayn Rand’s System


dsaum

Recommended Posts

I like it.

1. In discussing the stolen concept fallacy, McCaskey discusses an immature understanding of a concept and a mature understanding. This is an important distinction and I can even see where it applies to early scientific conclusions that we know are wrong today (the earth is flat and so on).

An immature understanding is what a concept appears to be from a limited perspective that does not allow the essence of it to be observed. (Those are my words, not McCaskey's, but they are my conclusion based on what he said.)

2. He replaces the priority of deductive logic from the rules of the game to the need to start with correct propositions (i,e, those based on reality). In a standard syllogism, it's perfectly OK according to the rules to have Premise 1: Pigs fly. Starting that way would be a 100% correct application of deductive logic and could result in a "true" syllogism.

I think logicians like to be brats and get a chuckle out of confounding people when they do that. But in Rand's understanding, this is sheer nonsense (which it is). For her, you have to start with correct premises, otherwise you are using a corrupt form of logic. I agree with this.

Here is the last part of the article as a teaser.

McCaskey's a smart cookie.

The logic here is not challenging. This is a straightforward application of the rules of modus tollens. “If no one died, it’s not a funeral (If not-q, then not-p)” implies “If there is a funeral, someone died (If p, then q.)”

The challenging part of Rand's method is this: Can words really have objectively correct meanings? The challenging parts of the moral and political cases are: Do all valid concepts of virtue presuppose the propriety of selfishness? Does the very concept of government include an essential role for protecting individual rights?

To defeat Ayn Rand’s moral or political philosophy, don’t waste time asking what will happen to the poor under capitalism or insisting that a selfish person would never help others. Instead, go after her epistemology, her distinctive way of arguing—because if you can refute that, her whole system falls apart.

If you can’t, you’ll find she is unstoppable.


One small note. I disagree with parts of Rand's essay, "The Objectivist Ethics," but not on her epistemological method. That's the "unstoppable" part. For example, I disagree with some of her observations about life and the restriction of volition to humans, in other words the "objectively correct meanings" of some of her premises (the metaphysics). Not whether the premises can be false and still convey truth (the epistemology).

But that is fixable. Just plug in better, more "mature" observations (to use McCaskey's terminology, meaning observations based on recent findings in neuroscience, psychology, etc.) and then run the logic.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

In ancient times?

You mean they didn't think the earth was flat in ancient times? That's an urban legend?

Maybe I didn't read this Wikipedia entry correctly (which I only looked up because of your post): Flat earth.

Does theologian only mean Christian to you? Or did ancient cultures have their own religious folks?

Come on...

Ancient times does not only mean the times you want to show people you know about (for the record: Myth of the Flat Earth, which only deals with Classic Greece on up).

To my point, I'm talking about the immature concept of ancient times that matured in modern times with greater knowledge of the essence of the concept "earth."

I'm talking about epistemology--the nature of the evolution of a concept from immature to mature, not about scientific gotcha.

Normally this conceptual maturation is present in the growth of a child to an adult. But I was talking about how this idea could be extended to the infancy of humankind to later maturity. Same process.

What's that got to do with Classic Greece or the Middle Ages?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on McCaskey's site, which will probably get deleted.

_________________________________

Following the highest established standards of logic, the most rigorous canonical reasoning, any logic professor can decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture. It took the Harvard professor Robert Nozick only a few paragraphs.

But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down.

This always cracks me up. Rand was such a compelling writer that even a person untrained in philosophy can understand her. But to really understand her you have to know some sort of Objectivist "super logic." So even if you have a Ph.D. in philosophy you can't intelligently critique her.

The best critique of Rand's ethics is Eric Mack's "Problematic Arguments in Randian Ethics," Journal of Ayn Rand Studies,
vol.5 no. 1 (Fall 2003) pp.1-66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCaskey's a smart cookie.

That article is causing me to wonder if he's as smart as I thought he was..

For instance (not the only instance, just the easiest to point to):

The challenging part of Rand's method is this: Can words really have objectively correct meanings? The challenging parts of the moral and political cases are: Do all valid concepts of virtue presuppose the propriety of selfishness? Does the very concept of government include an essential role for protecting individual rights?

He appears to be falling into Rand's sometimes confusion between words and concepts, and also to be forgetting points he made himself in criticizing Harriman on the development of scientific concepts.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree there is a certain fuzziness in some of McCaskey's presentation (not just virtue and selfishness). Starting with this assertion:

But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down.

Does this mean Rand's method has to be valid according to the "conventional standards of logic" to stand? If not, what is his standard of validity? Rand's own "distinctive method of arguing"?

Heh.

We have three possibilities:

1. Rand's method is valid according to the "conventional standards of logic." In that case, the "conventional standards of logic" are more fundamental than her "distinctive method of arguing" and that leads to a contradiction when the two collide if McCaskey is extolling the distinctiveness and "standing" of her meanings.

2. McCaskey did not give his standard of validity. And that would be sloppy writing. At best, it would be an unknown to the reader.

3. Rand's method is valid according to own "distinctive method of arguing." That would go off into circular reasoning and anything goes from there.

I find the image of "her whole system comes crashing down" to be jarring in light of that fuzzy premise. What would cause the system to crash? Instead of sounding the trumpet call of dramatic effect, this image clunks and fizzles to me. Humpty Dumpty without even the benefit of any king's horses or men. Crash qua crash as an end in itself, so to speak. :smile:

But I like how McCaskey highlights Rand's epistemological method as the essence of her arguments instead of traditional logic. And how he challenges the reader to look at her stuff through that lens.

I like that lens.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

In ancient times?

You mean they didn't think the earth was flat in ancient times? That's an urban legend?

Who is "they" The top thinkers in Alexandra knew the Earth was a sphereoid. In fact Eratosthenes the curator of the Library at Alexandria computed the circumference to within 7 percent of its current measured value.

Anyone he lived on the sea coast know the Earth was not flat because of the way ships appear and disappear at the horizon.

Even the rulers of Spain know the Earth was spherical when Columbus came around trying to raise funds. They initially rejected his proposals because they thought the distances would be too great. It was Washington Irving who created the myth that even the learned folk believed the Earth was flat.

Ba'all Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

In ancient times?

You mean they didn't think the earth was flat in ancient times? That's an urban legend?

Who is "they"

Come on, Bob. All you have to do is read.

Maybe I didn't read this Wikipedia entry correctly (which I only looked up because of your post): Flat earth.

Who is "they"? Try them at the Wikipedia link.

Go to the damn Wikipedia link and skim it if you want to know. You don't even need to read it to know who "they" are.

I can discuss all day, but do I really need to repeat a post you were too lazy to read?

Dayaamm!

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

In ancient times?

You mean they didn't think the earth was flat in ancient times? That's an urban legend?

Who is "they" The top thinkers in Alexandra knew the Earth was a sphereoid. In fact Eratosthenes the curator of the Library at Alexandria computed the circumference to within 7 percent of its current measured value.

Anyone he lived on the sea coast know the Earth was not flat because of the way ships appear and disappear at the horizon.

Even the rulers of Spain know the Earth was spherical when Columbus came around trying to raise funds. They initially rejected his proposals because they thought the distances would be too great. It was Washington Irving who created the myth that even the learned folk believed the Earth was flat.

Ba'all Chatzaf

That'd be the wrong reason because that's not why ships disappear on the horizon. They simply get too small to be seen. You have to go up to 100,000 feet from msl to see the curvature of the earth.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd be the wrong reason because that's not why ships disappear on the horizon. They simply get too small to be seen. You have to go up to 100,000 feet from msl to see the curvature of the earth.

--Brant

So you could keep them in view for a long time on a basic flat plane with a high powered digital telescope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd be the wrong reason because that's not why ships disappear on the horizon. They simply get too small to be seen. You have to go up to 100,000 feet from msl to see the curvature of the earth.

--Brant

So you could keep them in view for a long time on a basic flat plane with a high powered digital telescope?

Consider the effectiveness of ship-to-ship radar which the US exploited in WWII. More effective than eye to ship and the binoculars less effective than radar. Let's arbitrarily assume it's 20 miles to the horizon. That's only 1/1200 of the earth's circumference. That's what, 3 1/3 degrees of 360 in a circle?

--Brant

etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, according to my calculations, a ship would disappear over the horizon after traveling less than 10 miles, depending upon the height of the ship. So, on a clear day, it might be possible to see with the naked eye.

Darrell

That'd be 1/2400 of the earth's girth. 1.65 degrees of a circle.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's only 0.125 degrees (0.15 degrees using your method). The difference in height would be r - rcos(theta) where r is the radius of the Earth. Using your value for the angle, the height difference would be 72 feet. So, if the observer were lying on the ground and the ship were 72 feet high, it would completely disappear over the horizon in a distance of 10 miles. Alternately, if the observer's eyes were 6 feet off the ground and the ship were roughly 66 feet high, it would still disappear completely within the allotted distance.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's only 0.125 degrees (0.15 degrees using your method). The difference in height would be r - rcos(theta) where r is the radius of the Earth. Using your value for the angle, the height difference would be 72 feet. So, if the observer were lying on the ground and the ship were 72 feet high, it would completely disappear over the horizon in a distance of 10 miles. Alternately, if the observer's eyes were 6 feet off the ground and the ship were roughly 66 feet high, it would still disappear completely within the allotted distance.

Darrell

Nutz!

--Brant

I tried to pull a fast one

no wonder the old battleships had high observation masts

"I'll see you in hell, William Munny" (dethroned expert)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree there is a certain fuzziness in some of McCaskey's presentation (not just virtue and selfishness). Starting with this assertion:

But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down.

Does this mean Rand's method has to be valid according to the "conventional standards of logic" to stand? If not, what is his standard of validity? Rand's own "distinctive method of arguing"?

Heh.

We have three possibilities:

1. Rand's method is valid according to the "conventional standards of logic." In that case, the "conventional standards of logic" are more fundamental than her "distinctive method of arguing" and that leads to a contradiction when the two collide if McCaskey is extolling the distinctiveness and "standing" of her meanings.

2. McCaskey did not give his standard of validity. And that would be sloppy writing. At best, it would be an unknown to the reader.

3. Rand's method is valid according to own "distinctive method of arguing." That would go off into circular reasoning and anything goes from there.

I find the image of "her whole system comes crashing down" to be jarring in light of that fuzzy premise. What would cause the system to crash? Instead of sounding the trumpet call of dramatic effect, this image clunks and fizzles to me. Humpty Dumpty without even the benefit of any king's horses or men. Crash qua crash as an end in itself, so to speak. :smile:

But I like how McCaskey highlights Rand's epistemological method as the essence of her arguments instead of traditional logic. And how he challenges the reader to look at her stuff through that lens.

I like that lens.

Michael

I saw a link to McCaskey's article on facebook over the weekend and criticized it there. I don't like his general approach. In my view, Rand's arguments are mostly valid according to conventional standards of logic, e.g., the logic used in science, although she does occasionally make use of special results. For example, the statement "Existence exists" cannot be proven by logic alone, but it is implicit in every statement and supported by the evidence. Similar observations may be necessary to make her ethical argument complete, but most of what she says is easily seen by conventional methods.

Rand was good at noticing when people were using words and concepts improperly --- hence the fallacy of the stolen concept --- but that doesn't imply that noticing such inconsistencies was her method of reasoning, primary or otherwise.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's only 0.125 degrees (0.15 degrees using your method). The difference in height would be r - rcos(theta) where r is the radius of the Earth. Using your value for the angle, the height difference would be 72 feet. So, if the observer were lying on the ground and the ship were 72 feet high, it would completely disappear over the horizon in a distance of 10 miles. Alternately, if the observer's eyes were 6 feet off the ground and the ship were roughly 66 feet high, it would still disappear completely within the allotted distance.

Darrell

Nutz!

--Brant

I tried to pull a fast one

no wonder the old battleships had high observation masts

Yes indeed. In fact, that's evidence right there that, A. ships and land disappear over the horizon, and B. people knew it. All the old sailing ships (of sufficient size) had a crow's nest near the top of the tallest mast.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right! Pile on! Kick me while I'm down!

--Brant

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

(don't wake up a "sleeping giant")

deadhorse.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, Rand's arguments are mostly valid according to conventional standards of logic, e.g., the logic used in science, although she does occasionally make use of special results.

Darrell,

I have not read anything from Rand where she would endorse truth coming from a proposition like "pigs have wings," even when used in a syllogism.

On the contrary, she blasted this stuff as illogical, not merely as lack of common sense. (Although, artistically, she was fond of Dali. :) )

That's one big exception I see between her view and traditional science. I think it's a mistake to ignore that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't collapse Rand's philosophy by slicing and dicing her epistemology. If it's wrong, make it right. Out with the old; in with the new. Objectivism means objectively true. Just search for the truth to find objectivism.

--Brant

wherever you go, there you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, Rand's arguments are mostly valid according to conventional standards of logic, e.g., the logic used in science, although she does occasionally make use of special results.

Darrell,

I have not read anything from Rand where she would endorse truth coming from a proposition like "pigs have wings," even when used in a syllogism.

On the contrary, she blasted this stuff as illogical, not merely as lack of common sense. (Although, artistically, she was fond of Dali. :smile: )

That's one big exception I see between her view and traditional science. I think it's a mistake to ignore that.

Michael

Michael,

That's why I was careful to say the logic used in science and not the logic used by logicians. Logicians like to play games including starting with absurd premises. Scientists use observations to support their claims. Since no one has seen a pig with wings, that wouldn't be a starting point for scientific reasoning.

Logicians are obsessed with deductive reasoning. After all, that's what proofs are made of. But, in science, while deductive reasoning is often necessary and useful, carrying it too far usually leads to errors. That's why scientific conclusions are always tentative until experimental or observational evidence can be found in support of a claim. Even then, they may be tentative.

Rand's method of reason is similar. Reason is the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality. Although she doesn't say it explicitly, identification of facts clearly requires observing or experimenting on the world around you. The focus is outward, on that which exists, not inward on what you feel or think you know. <-- that is something she said. (Introspection is a separate issue.) Reality is ultimate arbiter of what is true or not true.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell,

A lot of scientists use the falsifiability logic of Popper and eschew definitions. They claim you can't prove anything is right, you can only prove it is wrong.

That is not Rand's method, either.

You hit on one of the distinctions by mentioning the axiomatic concepts (although you did not use that term, but instead mentioned the "existence exists" proposition based on them).

Michael

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