Blame David Hume


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

OK, Daniel,

fair enough. But let it be a new thread and one topic at a time. I'm currently stressed and pressed and wouldn't be able to devote a lot of time to it. Also, it's a dozen years since I finished researching Popper, I've no desire read him all all over again. So please can we stick to my critique. The ~Reason Papers~ version began with Popper's Humean premise, so why not start there?

Nicholas

Hi Nick

I think you are replying to Dragonfly, not me. But at any rate, I was simply registering my disagreement on that issue en passant. If I get a moment, tho, I'd be happy to send you my comments privately, or comment on Popper's Humean premise on this forum.

Again, the key issue I want to reiterate relates to Ba'al's point. Hume identified the logical "problem of induction" (as it is known). Kant's work is primarily a response to Hume. Why then, if in her own words, Rand doesn't even understand the central problem both Hume and Kant are addressing, (let alone Nathaniel Branden's testimony that she never actually read Kant) should we pay any attention at all to her opinions on these thinkers? Surely we should just acknowledge that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Daniel,

fair enough. But let it be a new thread and one topic at a time. I'm currently stressed and pressed and wouldn't be able to devote a lot of time to it. Also, it's a dozen years since I finished researching Popper, I've no desire read him all all over again. So please can we stick to my critique. The ~Reason Papers~ version began with Popper's Humean premise, so why not start there?

Nicholas

Hi Nick

I think you are replying to Dragonfly, not me. But at any rate, I was simply registering my disagreement on that issue en passant. If I get a moment, tho, I'd be happy to send you my comments privately, or comment on Popper's Humean premise on this forum.

Again, the key issue I want to reiterate relates to Ba'al's point. Hume identified the logical "problem of induction" (as it is known). Kant's work is primarily a response to Hume. Why then, if in her own words, Rand doesn't even understand the central problem both Hume and Kant are addressing, (let alone Nathaniel Branden's testimony that she never actually read Kant) should we pay any attention at all to her opinions on these thinkers? Surely we should just acknowledge that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

Hi Daniel,

Yes, I was replying to you. Sorry, getting old, getting confused.

I think Rand was an extraordinarly gifted thinker, but it seems evident that occasionally she rather 'flew by the seat of her pants' offering intuitive rather than carefully worked out judgements. Often, her intuitions were sound. Other times, they would have been better if she done the kind of work professional philosophers do -- teasing out all the nuances first. Yes, she said again and again that she expected 'good minds' to fill in the details, but I would have been much happier if she'd done some of that work herself. So, when you say she didn't know what she was talking about on induction, I'm half inclined to agree. Only half, though, because so often her intuitions were valid.

I've thought a thousand times how different all our lives would have been if she'd been a professional philosopher first, novelist second. That said, I think it's time we took the bull by the horns and started to do the solid, detailed professional work ourselves, without continually looking over our shoulders at what Rand said. It's up to us now. We don't need Rand to address the problem of induction, we can do it ourselves. Best, Nicholas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when you say she didn't know what she was talking about on induction, I'm half inclined to agree.

Well, she said it, not me. It's right there in the ITOE. The consequences of this passing remark are, however, far-reaching.

Only half, though, because so often her intuitions were valid.

Intuitions "valid"? I don't know if Rand would agree with you on that one...;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the key issue I want to reiterate relates to Ba'al's point. Hume identified the logical "problem of induction" (as it is known). Kant's work is primarily a response to Hume. Why then, if in her own words, Rand doesn't even understand the central problem both Hume and Kant are addressing, (let alone Nathaniel Branden's testimony that she never actually read Kant) should we pay any attention at all to her opinions on these thinkers? Surely we should just acknowledge that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

If a thinker/philosopher reasons from half baked premises to perverse conclusions, is it really necessary to read everything in between to see how they got there before forming an opinion of them?

If induction is impossible, then we do pretty well for not knowing anything.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If induction is impossible, then we do pretty well for not knowing anything.

Darrell

Induction and abduction are not only possible, but necessary. They are the only method of moving from a finite set of particular assertions to general (universally quantified) statements. But there is a catch. Inductive inference is not guaranteed to be valid. That is the price which is paid for going from the particular to the general.

Without induction and abduction we would have no science.

Deduction is the only sure fire way of inferring conclusions from premises.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a thinker/philosopher reasons from half baked premises to perverse conclusions, is it really necessary to read everything in between to see how they got there before forming an opinion of them?

Darrell,

Here's the quote in full: ITOE p304-5

Prof M:"The question is: where does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that the province of the issue of induction?

Rand: "Yes. That's the big question of induction...Which I couldn't even begin to discuss - because...I haven't worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it..." - Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology p304

She didn't say "I haven't read everything on the subject". She said couldn't even begin to discuss it, and hadn't worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it.

If induction is impossible, then we do pretty well for not knowing anything.

We do indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H.W.B Joseph solved Hume's 'problem of induction' in 1916 in his ~Introduction to Logic~. I pointed this out in two essays on Popper (1996 & 1999) and reiterate it in my recent book ~Old Nick's Guide to Happiness~. Blatant plug? Absolutely!

Quite interesting, Nick. The title by Joseph is available in various editions here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the quote in full: ITOE p304-5
Prof M:"The question is: where does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that the province of the issue of induction?

Rand: "Yes. That's the big question of induction...Which I couldn't even begin to discuss - because...I haven't worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it..." - Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology p304

She didn't say "I haven't read everything on the subject". She said couldn't even begin to discuss it, and hadn't worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it.

Therefore we must accept the conclusions of Hume and Kant that we can't know anything and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world? Rand was smarter than that, even if she hadn't studied Hume's problem in detail.

BTW, Rand is no doubt being modest when she says she couldn't, "even begin to formulate [the problem]." It would be like an astronomer whose specialty was nebulae saying that he couldn't even begin to discuss solar system formation when he undoubtedly knows a lot more about the subject than the average person on the street. As a professional, he doesn't want to say that he knows something about a subject until he thoroughly understands it, especially if unique principles are involved.

If induction is impossible, then we do pretty well for not knowing anything.

We do indeed!

That's is one of those perverse conclusions that I was mentioning.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Just for now, is it possible to use another adjective than "perverse"?

I am not sure if you are aware of it, but I just had an issue with Ted over the insulting nature of this word when used right at the outset of a discussion and the waters could get muddied.

I think the ideas are too important to derail them on non-essential tangents, and this is fertile ground for derailment and escalatioin of misunderstanding and tempers.

Like all things in life, this moment shall pass. So it's not a dirty-word kind of thing. Just a request for collaboration on an issue where a bit of common sense goes a long way.

Fortunately the English language is rich and there are plenty of words and expressions to convey incorrect meaning in the usage of terms or incorrect application of logic.

Thanks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore we must accept the conclusions of Hume and Kant that we can't know anything and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world? Rand was smarter than that, even if she hadn't studied Hume's problem in detail.

No. You have to accept the conclusions of Hume unless you have a better logical argument (and from what I recall, having discussed this with you before, is that you in fact mean something else by "logic" than what Hume or Kant or indeed any non-Objectivist means by the term, thus making further discussion as to your argument's superiority, should you possess one, somewhat irrelevant).

BTW, Rand is no doubt being modest when she says she couldn't, "even begin to formulate [the problem]." It would be like an astronomer whose specialty was nebulae saying that he couldn't even begin to discuss solar system formation when he undoubtedly knows a lot more about the subject than the average person on the street. As a professional, he doesn't want to say that he knows something about a subject until he thoroughly understands it, especially if unique principles are involved.

And so what? If an astronomer wrote about other astronomers the way Rand wrote about Kant and Hume, then confessed she hadn't even begun to examine the basic astronomical problems they were trying to solve, she wouldn't be taken seriously either!

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore we must accept the conclusions of Hume and Kant that we can't know anything and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world? Rand was smarter than that, even if she hadn't studied Hume's problem in detail.

Hume never ever said that we can't know anything.

Read -Enquiry into Human Understanding- part 64. Hume states that we clearly perceive prior and posterior events. What we do not perceive is necessary connection. The necessity connection between the prior event (cause) and the posterior event (effect) is a mental construct, a kind of inference.

Think of it this way. Nature provides the dots (and we come to know them). We draw the lines connecting them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Just for now, is it possible to use another adjective than "perverse"?

I am not sure if you are aware of it, but I just had an issue with Ted over the insulting nature of this word when used right at the outset of a discussion and the waters could get muddied.

I think the ideas are too important to derail them on non-essential tangents, and this is fertile ground for derailment and escalatioin of misunderstanding and tempers.

Like all things in life, this moment shall pass. So it's not a dirty-word kind of thing. Just a request for collaboration on an issue where a bit of common sense goes a long way.

Fortunately the English language is rich and there are plenty of words and expressions to convey incorrect meaning in the usage of terms or incorrect application of logic.

Thanks.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I'm not aware of the conversation you had with Ted. However, I don't think the word is inappropriate in the context. A quick trip over to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perverse gives the following definitions:

1. willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.

2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.

3. wayward or cantankerous.

4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.

5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

Definition 4 is pretty much on target. A philosopher who persists in concluding that knowledge is impossible is being perverse when it is clear that knowledge is possible. Remember also the context of my remark. Daniel Barnes had already stooped to insulting Rand in his previous post by calling her "incredibly naive" among other things. It is clear that he would rather insult and dismiss Rand and her views rather than debating them honestly. Pardon me for responding in kind. It is Daniel that is usually the inflammatory writer. Not me. However, I will try to tone it down a bit.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore we must accept the conclusions of Hume and Kant that we can't know anything and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world? Rand was smarter than that, even if she hadn't studied Hume's problem in detail.

No. You have to accept the conclusions of Hume unless you have a better logical argument

That is a non-sequitur. Must I believe in God if I don't have any better explanation for the origin of the Universe?

(and from what I recall, having discussed this with you before, is that you in fact mean something else by "logic" than what Hume or Kant or indeed any non-Objectivist means by the term, thus making further discussion as to your argument's superiority, should you possess one, somewhat irrelevant).

The fact that you happened to trip me up once in the past, doesn't give you license call me illogical, which is essentially what you are doing. If you are going to stoop to name calling, then it is pointless to have a discussion with you.

And so what? If an astronomer wrote about other astronomers the way Rand wrote about Kant and Hume, then confessed she hadn't even begun to examine the basic astronomical problems they were trying to solve, she wouldn't be taken seriously either!

If other astronomers were writing that the moon was made of cheese, then she would have license to dismiss them. It is different to say, for example, that, "I don't know how to solve this problem," than it is to conclude that the problem is unsolvable or that some bizarre explanation must be fact when it is obvious from first hand experience that it is not. If Kant had written that he had tried really hard to solve Hume's problem, but had failed, rather than asserting with incredible arrogance that the world was a certain way, when it obviously was not, then he might have been a more sympathetic figure. At least Hume was somewhat more modest, stating that his conclusions seemed to fly in the face of common sense.

Darrell

Edited by Darrell Hougen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell, click on the link "word" in my post #35 above if you want to see the origin of the tempest. I have to laugh at all this, and am otherwise happy to leave the issue lie.

Ahhhh. Now I see. I guess I just sort of skipped over that entire thread before. "Perverse" is admittedly an inflammatory word, though not in the sense that some people seem to think it is. I would assume that most people reading this board would be knowledgeable enough to know the proper interpretation of the word, but then again, perhaps not. Funny.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Barnes had already stooped to insulting Rand in his previous post by calling her "incredibly naive" among other things. It is clear that he would rather insult and dismiss Rand and her views rather than debating them honestly.

Darrell,

I don't get the impression that when Daniel calls Rand "incredibly naive," he is purposely deceiving people (is being dishonest). However misguided, I believe he believes that appraisal and does so honestly.

I do agree that he has some rhetorical devices, for example stating something in an affected manner that presumes you agree with him when you don't, that rankles, but even then, I don't consider them dishonest. They belong to a form of debate I am leaving behind, competitive one-upmanship. The purpose of that form is not to convince or examine, but to somehow defeat an opponent. (Daniel doesn't do this all the time. To be fair, he gets a lot in this sense too, so it is hard to know when he is provoking or reacting.)

This does not mean I am abandoning one-upmanship banter, though. I'm always good for some banter. I'm an upbeat dude and I don't think I will ever tire of it.

On the is-ought issue, and related ones like induction, definitions, etc., if you look into Daniel's thinking you will see they reflect Popper's thoughts as understood by Daniel and applied to Rand as if Rand used them as her own starting points. This leads him to miss certain fundamental issues (like building an idea from where Rand really started) and judge her to be "incredibly naive."

But depending on the issue, I also think there were a few subjects in which Rand was "incredibly naive." They are usually personal matters and not intellectual ones. In other words, the naivity is in how she applied her intellect to her relationships with people, not how she arrived at her ideas. In the arriving at ideas department, she was a first class thinker and razor sharp.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Barnes had already stooped to insulting Rand in his previous post by calling her "incredibly naive" among other things. It is clear that he would rather insult and dismiss Rand and her views rather than debating them honestly.

Darrell,

I don't get the impression that when Daniel calls Rand "incredibly naive," he is purposely deceiving people (is being dishonest). However misguided, I believe he believes that appraisal and does so honestly.

When I say, "debate them honestly," I'm saying, don't engage in ad hominem attacks against the philosopher or other members of the board, no matter how subtly disguised such attacks may be. He may honestly believe that Rand was naive, but, even if that were true, it would not invalidate her arguments. I would just prefer to debate the substance of people's positions than to engage in or fend off personal attacks.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a non-sequitur. Must I believe in God if I don't have any better explanation for the origin of the Universe?

No, it's not a non sequitur, because the analogy is not God but, as Leonard Peikoff likes to say, "2+2=4". Hume's position is that clearcut. Now, if you want to argue Hume's logic is mistaken and that it equals 5, or 0.398567, or a fish, that's fine, but you have to demonstrate it.

The fact that you happened to trip me up once in the past, doesn't give you license call me illogical, which is essentially what you are doing. If you are going to stoop to name calling, then it is pointless to have a discussion with you.

Actually, I didn't recall "tripping you up", as in you personally. It's the Objectivist position that is illogical. As this becomes clear in debate, what usually happens is Objectivists then produce their own special definition of logic. This seems - to them at least - to resolve the problem. To outsiders however it is a non-sequitur. That's basically how it plays out in my experience.

If Kant had written that he had tried really hard to solve Hume's problem, but had failed, rather than asserting with incredible arrogance that the world was a certain way, when it obviously was not, then he might have been a more sympathetic figure.

Well, at least Kant tried! Rand didn't even start to think about it, yet still asserted with incredible arrogance that the world - and of course Kant and Hume - was a certain way, when it was not. If she hadn't done that, she too might have been a more sympathetic figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Barnes had already stooped to insulting Rand in his previous post by calling her "incredibly naive" among other things. It is clear that he would rather insult and dismiss Rand and her views rather than debating them honestly. Pardon me for responding in kind. It is Daniel that is usually the inflammatory writer. Not me. However, I will try to tone it down a bit.

Firstly, I said a particular remark of Rand's was "breathtakingly naive." I then clearly explained why (ie that the problem of induction is a logical one, not, as Rand makes out, something say a botanist needs to present as it relates to botany!) While this is certainly dismissive of me, and you may find it inflammatory (even though it is true), it is not dishonest. It is a naive thing for Rand to say, and makes it clear that, as I maintain, she didn't know what she was talking about on this central issue.

In short, I am debating the substance of the issue, but for some reason you can only see a personal attack. I'm not sure why.

Secondly, if you can't stand inflammatory writing, and insulting and dismissing a philosopher's views rather than debating them honestly, it is honestly hard to know how you have made your way through Rand's oeuvre to date. Do you equally register your disapproval of Rand's consistent intellectual policy of ad hominems, refusal to directly quote her opponents, and arguments from intimidation? One would hope so.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not a non sequitur, because the analogy is not God but, as Leonard Peikoff likes to say, "2+2=4". Hume's position is that clearcut. Now, if you want to argue Hume's logic is mistaken and that it equals 5, or 0.398567, or a fish, that's fine, but you have to demonstrate it.

Hume's argument is nothing more than a straw man. His argument may be logically sound, but since it doesn't pertain to the way people actually think, it is irrelevant. The fallacy is in thinking that his argument pertains to important scientific conclusions or even to everyday understanding rather than just to certain arguments in probability theory, where it is valid but not particularly earth shattering.

Actually, I didn't recall "tripping you up", as in you personally. It's the Objectivist position that is illogical. As this becomes clear in debate, what usually happens is Objectivists then produce their own special definition of logic. This seems - to them at least - to resolve the problem. To outsiders however it is a non-sequitur. That's basically how it plays out in my experience.

If you believe that the introduction of facts into arguments makes them illogical, then the Objectivist position must seem quite hopeless to you. But, Objectivists are interested in arguments that pertain to reality, not just rarefied academic discussions.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore we must accept the conclusions of Hume and Kant that we can't know anything and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world? Rand was smarter than that, even if she hadn't studied Hume's problem in detail.

Hume never ever said that we can't know anything [and that our senses don't provide evidence about the world] [my insert, to include the rest of Darrell's description].

Neither did Kant.

Speaking of Kant...

A question for Ted Keer.

Ted,

I'm curious about an item I found on your webblog (via a link which you posted either here or on RoR; I've lost track of the post in which the link appeared):

http://radicalsforhappiness.blogspot.com/2...deep-field.html

In display type, you quote Camille Paglia:

Atheism alone is a rotting corpse. I substitute art and nature for God - the grandeur of man and the vast mystery of the universe.

- Camille Paglia

Are you aware that Paglia is echoing -- I'd expect deliberately -- a famous statement of Kant's?

""the starry sky above and the moral law within"?

Here

Kant: The Moral Order

Having mastered epistemology and metaphysics, Kant believed that a rigorous application of the same methods of reasoning would yield an equal success in dealing with the problems of moral philosophy. Thus, in the Kritik der practischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason) (1788), he proposed a "Table of the Categories of Freedom in Relation to the Concepts of Good and Evil," using the familiar logical distinctions as the basis for a catalog of synthetic a priori judgments that have bearing on the evaluation of human action, and declared that only two things inspire genuine awe: "der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir" ("the starry sky above and the moral law within"). Kant used ordinary moral notions as the foundation ffor a derivation of this moral law in his Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) (1785).

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hume's argument is nothing more than a straw man. His argument may be logically sound, but since it doesn't pertain to the way people actually think(DB emphasis), it is irrelevant.

Note my emphasis. I didn't know it was the Objectivist position that people don't actually think logically! In which case, you and Hume are in full agreement. For this is the consequential problem that follows the logical problem of induction ie the psychological problem of induction.

The fallacy is in thinking that his argument pertains to important scientific conclusions or even to everyday understanding rather than just to certain arguments in probability theory, where it is valid but not particularly earth shattering.

Merely asserting that something is a fallacy does not make it so! The onus is on you to logically demonstrate it. Or are you simply stealing the concept “fallacy” from standard logic?

(In passing, I note that, to use Objectivist parlance, most Objectivist discussion of the problem of induction relies on stolen concepts such as “validity.” They are stolen, of course, from deductive logic).

If you believe that the introduction of facts into arguments makes them illogical, then the Objectivist position must seem quite hopeless to you. But, Objectivists are interested in arguments that pertain to reality, not just rarefied academic discussions.

The Objectivist position seems hopeless to me for a number of reasons, the simplest of which being that Rand self-confessedly had no understanding of the problem Hume was identifying. Hence most of her followers are likewise.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
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