Neil Parille Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Got the book and its pretty good. (I’m on page 150.) The tone is actually surprising. Although he disagrees with other views, it’s not in the snarky tone of something like OPAR. He generally says “Rand” and not “Ayn Rand,” which was quite a relief. No mention of Branden, Kelley or any published criticisisms of Rand. I guess that’s not a surprise. The price keeps bouncing around on Amazon. I got mine at 38 but I saw it the other day as low as 28. Today it’s 31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Does the book address an neurophysiological issues or questions. If one does not know the brain, one does not know how we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 He makes some references to these topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 He makes some references to these topics.He "mentions" some of these topics? Why am I underwhelmed. The problem of how we know is precisely the problem of how our brains work, right down to the molecular level. Our brains are squooshy electrochemical machines. To know how we know we must know our brains and their workings in detail.Modern medicine can treat and sometimes cure diseases because we know how some of the organs work and how they interact with chemicals at the molecular level. The current pop-psyche theories of how we think are where medicine was when we attributed our dysfunctions to "bad humors" or when we believed we were possessed by demons.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsaum Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It seems to be out of stock on Amazon today?http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Know-Harry-Binswanger/dp/0985640618Wonder why there are no reviews on Amazon?Wonder why there is no kindle version?Wonder why it is not available for sale on Harry's email list site?http://www.hblist.com/I guess his marketing strategy is to make it hard to get.PS: It seems to be available directly from Harry for $39.99 with FS.http://www.how-we-know.com/http://www.tofpublications.com/But his web pages are rather hard to find with search engines due to lack of SEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I read some of the excerpts. Admirably clear writing."Where does the soul go when you die? To the same place as your heartbeat." (p.37)15 words to describe one side of the fault-line that has plagued and perplexed mankind for a very long time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 He makes some references to these topics.He "mentions" some of these topics? Why am I underwhelmed. The problem of how we know is precisely the problem of how our brains work, right down to the molecular level. Our brains are squooshy electrochemical machines. To know how we know we must know our brains and their workings in detail.When scientists apply the scientific method (theory --> prediction), do they need to know at the electrochemical level how their brains work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Baal: you might want to at least read the excerpts before making pronouncements about the book. The excerpts are really a joy to read. Binswanger is using a velvet hammer here; very unlike what lapsed (and actual) Objectivists are used to reading.Too bad all philosophy and/or theology weren't written so clearly. Too bad all Objectivist philosophers didn't write so evenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 How much neorophysiology is in his work? A lot. A little. None. Some??? If none or a little it is worthless. The way to know how we know is to study the brain in its natural mode of operation.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ba'al, neurophysiology (the study of the brain and the nervous system) is not epistemology (the study of how we know), any more than auto mechanics or the study of internal combustion engines is driver's education--or than genetics or cellular biology is sex education--or than number theory or set theory is arithmetic. To know *how* to do those things, you need epistemology, driver's education, sex education, and arithmetic -- not neurophysiology.It's absurd to say that a *description* of how we know is not a description of *how we know.*Aristotle's Organon was not worthless. Nor was Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.Knowledge of the brain processes, including the neurology and neurochemistry &c of the brain during cognition, is very worthwhile to pursue, and may someday be the basis of fixing the brains of people who have lost (or never acquired) the ability to know well. But it is not what we teach people *so that* they can know well.I'm supposed to get my copy of Binswanger's book tomorrow. I have my own agenda in wanting to read it, but it is not to criticize it for "failing" to be sufficiently grounded in physical or biological science.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ba'al, neurophysiology (the study of the brain and the nervous system) is not epistemology (the study of how we know), any more than auto mechanics or the study of internal combustion engines is driver's education--or than genetics or cellular biology is sex education--or than number theory or set theory is arithmetic. To know *how* to do those things, you need epistemology, driver's education, sex education, and arithmetic -- not neurophysiology.Well said, except for including "number theory" (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 You don't need number theory in order to know how to do arithmetic, do you? Nor did the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, or Babylonians, did they? Didn't they discover arithmetic and codify it in a more or less experiential and inductive way?I don't recall studying number theory in the lower elementary grades. I more or less discovered it as a senior in high school, when I was wondering what might lie on beyond algebra, geometry, and trigonometry and started perusing what few advanced math books we had in our school library.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I'm not dissing number theory, nor any of the other scientific disciplines I mentioned (except set theory). I *love* number theory.If you're saying, Merlin, that it's analogous in its relation to arithmetic to epistemology's relation to our knowing in general -- sort of a "How We Compute" -- I could accept that, with some clarification from you. So, please enlighten me, if you would.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 How much neorophysiology is in his work? A lot. A little. None. Some??? If none or a little it is worthless. The way to know how we know is to study the brain in its natural mode of operation.Ba'al Chatzaf How do you know this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 How do you know this?David,Spontaneously activated meat running a self-contained temporary system?Not my view. Just guessing...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Roger, I see two kinds of positions in your post #10. 1. X and Y are two very different topics. 2. One doesn't need to know X in order to write about or do Y. For X=number theory and Y=arithmetic, I agree with #2 but not with #1. Both number theory and arithmetic are about the relations of numbers, and as the page linked in #11 says, "The older term for number theory is arithmetic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 How do you know this?David,Spontaneously activated meat running a self-contained temporary system? Not my view. Just guessing... MichaelHa!It fascinates me that Baal essentially believes we are advanced amoebas with trousers on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 How much neorophysiology is in his work? A lot. A little. None. Some??? If none or a little it is worthless. The way to know how we know is to study the brain in its natural mode of operation.Ba'al Chatzaf How do you know this?It is obvious. My brain knows what is it doing and it tells the rest of me.I am making the assumption most people know what they know because their brain is doing what it is doing. Pop Psyche has been around since at least the time of Aristotle. That is about 2300 years. We have most of what we know about knowing in that list 100 years without a smidgin of Aristotelian psychology or metaphysics. That sort of tells me 2200 years were wasted. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ha!It fascinates me that Baal essentially believes we are advanced amoebas with trousers on...David,That's the materialistism end. On the other end (philosophy or mind), Robert Bidinotto used to criticize over-rationalistic Objectivists for believing we are premises with feet.But even if we combine the two, all we get are barefoot advanced amoebas decked out in premises and trousers.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Ha!It fascinates me that Baal essentially believes we are advanced amoebas with trousers on...Who also ride bicycles and run particle accelerators too.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Got the book and its pretty good. (I’m on page 150.) The tone is actually surprising. Although he disagrees with other views, it’s not in the snarky tone of something like OPAR. He generally says “Rand” and not “Ayn Rand,” which was quite a relief. No mention of Branden, Kelley or any published criticisisms of Rand. I guess that’s not a surprise. The price keeps bouncing around on Amazon. I got mine at 38 but I saw it the other day as low as 28. Today it’s 31.To me, the only relevant question is, is there anything of substance that is new in Binswanger's book? Is it just a retelling of Rand's ideas, or does it expand on them? Does it disagree with her in any way or correct any of her errors? Does it show any awareness of criticism of Rand's views? If it doesn't address the existence of criticisms directly (so as not to "sanction" them or give them attention), does it at least pretend to image what possible criticisms people might come up with, and then address them "preemptively"?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 It seems pretty much a retelling, but he goes beyond Rand. For example the discussion of direct realism is much more developed than Rand. There is a chapter on propositions, which is Binswanger's own theory. He says Rand was thinking of writing ITOE II: Propositions. I hadn't heard that before.I was a little disappointed that he didn't make much of an effort to prove that Rand's theory of concept formation is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Chapter 3: Concept-formation includes:VI. The Objectivist theoryA. IntegrationB. Unit-economyWhat does he say about omitting measurements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The measurement account of similarity and comparative similarity showcased by Rand, then her theory of concepts as by measurement omissions are covered on pages 110–28. Binswanger counts ordinal rankings as a form of measurement, like Rand, and like I with Suppes et al., contra you with Michell. Binswanger uses my well-known physical example of scratch-hardness for his illustration of ordinal measurement. There is here no sophisticated treatment of measurement, such as the JARS writings by me or you on measurement and its incorporation into Rand’s theory of concepts. That’s not the level at which the book is pitched.Use of the physical example of scratch-hardness speaks an understanding of ordinal measurement an inch improved over Rand’s understanding back in the day; she was stuck on mentality and valuation as sole realm of ordinal scaling. Binswanger does not continue, as I did not continue, Rand’s presumption that with enough understanding, all measurement of a magnitude can be brought under ratio-scaling; that use of other scaling is a reflection only of our ignorance. However, Binswanger does not go so far as to adopt my 2004 embrace of there being different types of magnitude structures to which scales must be appropriate (which I took from modern measurement theory and from the concept of appropriate mathematization in mathematical physics – Geroch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Ba'al you run particle accelerators? Cooooooooool! I work with Ir 192 and occasionally Co60 does that make me an amoeba with fancy glow in the dark trousers??Thank you Stephen, I will definitely pick this book up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now