New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. [....]

How about the voice of Objectivist orthodoxy, indeed THE leading interpreter of Rand, daring to question such Objectivistly conventional beliefs as the correspondence theory of truth and passing this off as an extension of Rand? That takes some daring, or sheer stupidity. And that's before the cockeyed physics even gets underway.

Cheers, George

[Ellen Stuttle]

"[....] Then [Peikoff] said I must not have understood the part about "context." This is the Peikovian way of saying that I had it wrong that Galileo had made any mistake whatsoever, that the formula was "true in Galileo's context of knowledge." Finally Peikoff answered that he saw nothing of interest."

Almost a minor instance compared to what Harriman does with Newton.... As I said elsewhere, they've substituted contextual truth for the former contextual certainty.

Ellen

[kiaer.ts]

As I said elsewhere, they've substituted contextual truth for the former contextual certainty.

Ellen

Can you post a link? That is a cogent-sounding criticism.

[George H. Smith]

[....] It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. [....]

How about the voice of Objectivist orthodoxy, indeed THE leading interpreter of Rand, daring to question such Objectivistly conventional beliefs as the correspondence theory of truth and passing this off as an extension of Rand? That takes some daring, or sheer stupidity. And that's before the cockeyed physics even gets underway.

Cheers, George

At least Peikoff and Harriman understand the difference between science and philosophy. They are better in this respect than someone who makes grand philosophical pronouncements and then dismisses critics by invoking the authority of science.

Bob has recently given us his muddled musings about "appearances." He cannot, of course, be bothered with reading any of the many philosophical works that have addressed this topic, for knowing what one is talking about in matters of philosophy is beneath the dignity of a champion of science. And we can now look forward to his keen analysis of Harriman's philosophical points. I can barely contain my excitement. I am sure to learn a lot from an exposition of the new scholasticism, as authorities are invoked by the truckload.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

[....] It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. [....]

How about the voice of Objectivist orthodoxy, indeed THE leading interpreter of Rand, daring to question such Objectivistly conventional beliefs as the correspondence theory of truth and passing this off as an extension of Rand? That takes some daring, or sheer stupidity. And that's before the cockeyed physics even gets underway.

Cheers, George

At least Peikoff and Harriman understand the difference between science and philosophy. They are better in this respect than someone who makes grand philosophical pronouncements and then dismisses critics by invoking the authority of science.

Bob has recently given us his muddled musings about "appearances." He cannot, of course, be bothered with reading any of the many philosophical works that have addressed this topic, for knowing what one is talking about in matters of philosophy is beneath the dignity of a champion of science. And we can now look forward to his keen analysis of Harriman's philosophical points. I can barely contain my excitement. I am sure to learn a lot from an exposition of the new scholasticism, as authorities are invoked by the truckload.

Ghs

Speaking of can't be bothered, George, I remind you of your dismissive remarks on the closed yet finite universe model, which you did not feel it was necessary to understand in order to dismiss.

[sjw]

For the record, I didn't have you or any other particular person in mind when I quoted Spencer. I encountered Spencer's remark decades ago (I believe it is from his Autobiography), and I try to keep it in mind when I comment on or review books; for me, it serves as a kind of check on hubris. It seemed to fit, in a rough-and-ready manner, in my post, so I included it.

Ghs

Thanks George. For the record I never thought you had intended to direct it at me personally, but meant it exactly as you state it here, as a statement of a professional code of sorts. I don't take issue with your code because I think there's a wide range of optionality there. I stuck my neck out in my rather harsh criticism and certain sleazy people predictably take advantage of that -- that's the cost of not following the convention you advocate.

Again, I think the harshness is warranted given the ARI context and the values that I think are at stake. If Harriman were just some guy who wrote a book on induction, I would not have probably leaned more to a criticism of your style (if I had bothered to respond at all).

Shayne

[sjw]

Speaking of can't be bothered, George, I remind you of your dismissive remarks on the closed yet finite universe model, which you did not feel it was necessary to understand in order to dismiss.

Because that has a lot to do with this thread.

Why do you obsess Ted? Why do you have to drag the entire universe into every conversation?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

[....] It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. [....]

How about the voice of Objectivist orthodoxy, indeed THE leading interpreter of Rand, daring to question such Objectivistly conventional beliefs as the correspondence theory of truth and passing this off as an extension of Rand? That takes some daring, or sheer stupidity. And that's before the cockeyed physics even gets underway.

Cheers, George

At least Peikoff and Harriman understand the difference between science and philosophy. They are better in this respect than someone who makes grand philosophical pronouncements and then dismisses critics by invoking the authority of science.

Bob has recently given us his muddled musings about "appearances." He cannot, of course, be bothered with reading any of the many philosophical works that have addressed this topic, for knowing what one is talking about in matters of philosophy is beneath the dignity of a champion of science. And we can now look forward to his keen analysis of Harriman's philosophical points. I can barely contain my excitement. I am sure to learn a lot from an exposition of the new scholasticism, as authorities are invoked by the truckload.

Ghs

Speaking of can't be bothered, George, I remind you of your dismissive remarks on the closed yet finite universe model, which you did not feel it was necessary to understand in order to dismiss.

Where did I dismiss this theory? Asking questions or expressing doubts about a theory is not the same as dismissing it. What did you expect me to do? Roll over and play brain dead in the name of science? There are already too many scientistic bootlickers on OL; we don't need any more.

Perhaps you will find me a bit less skeptical if someone will give me a clear and sensible answer to the questions: What exactly is "space," as conceived by physicists, and what are its attributes in virtue of which we can describe it as "curved?" I have asked similar questions numerous times, and all I have gotten back are evasions to the effect that scientists have demonstrated the curvature of space.

This is like asking "What is God?" and being told that theologians have proven the existence of God.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

[....] It is always stimulating to have a voice of orthodoxy shouting down anyone who dares to question conventional beliefs. [....]

How about the voice of Objectivist orthodoxy, indeed THE leading interpreter of Rand, daring to question such Objectivistly conventional beliefs as the correspondence theory of truth and passing this off as an extension of Rand? That takes some daring, or sheer stupidity. And that's before the cockeyed physics even gets underway.

Cheers, George

At least Peikoff and Harriman understand the difference between science and philosophy. They are better in this respect than someone who makes grand philosophical pronouncements and then dismisses critics by invoking the authority of science.

Bob has recently given us his muddled musings about "appearances." He cannot, of course, be bothered with reading any of the many philosophical works that have addressed this topic, for knowing what one is talking about in matters of philosophy is beneath the dignity of a champion of science. And we can now look forward to his keen analysis of Harriman's philosophical points. I can barely contain my excitement. I am sure to learn a lot from an exposition of the new scholasticism, as authorities are invoked by the truckload.

Ghs

Speaking of can't be bothered, George, I remind you of your dismissive remarks on the closed yet finite universe model, which you did not feel it was necessary to understand in order to dismiss.

Where did I dismiss this theory? Asking questions or expressing doubts about a theory is not the same as dismissing it. What did you expect me to do? Roll over and play brain dead in the name of science? There are already too many scientistic bootlickers on OL; we don't need any more.

Perhaps you will find me a bit less skeptical if someone will give me a clear and sensible answer to the questions: What exactly is "space," as conceived by physicists, and what are its attributes in virtue of which we can describe it as "curved?" I have asked similar questions numerous times, and all I have gotten back are evasions to the effect that scientists have demonstrated the curvature of space.

This is like asking "What is God?" and being told that theologians have proven the existence of God.

Ghs

You dismissed the standard cosmological model for, among other things, the fact that it - like the "theory" of evolution - is called a "model." You dismissed the fourth dimension, which is necessary to any conception of a closed, finite universe, as mystical nonsense. Unable to understand or explain it in your own words, you announced it had died of a "thousand qualifications." See here http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=108997 and the posts leading up to it. I am not interested in trying to argue this with you further. I simply mention it as an example of your dismissing on rhetorical grounds a scientific theory you have not bothered to understand on your own.

If you do want to understand the theory I do recommend Hawkin's Universe in a Nutshell, a far more competent exegesis than I can give.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

You dismissed the standard cosmological model for, among other things, the fact that it - like the "theory" of evolution - is called a "model." You dismissed the fourth dimension, which is necessary to any conception of a closed, finite universe, as mystical nonsense. Unable to understand or explain it in your own words, you announced it had died of a "thousand qualifications." See here http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=108997 and the posts leading up to it. I am not interested in trying to argue this with you further. I simply mention it as an example of your dismissing on rhetorical grounds a scientific theory you have not bothered to understand on your own.

If you do want to understand the theory I do recommend Hawkin's Universe in a Nutshell, a far more competent exegesis than I can give.

In the post you linked, I joked that Sagan's Flatlander analogy is "officially dead," having "succumbed to the Death of a Thousand Qualifications." It is indeed a crappy analogy.

I have read several books by Hawking, including The Universe in a Nutshell. So what? I don't recall that it answers my questions about space. I could be wrong about this, however, since I read it around five years ago.

As for a fourth dimension, my thoughts on this were most fully expressed in an earlier post from another thread. Here is part of what I said, with the addition of some italics:

You suggest that "philosophers (laypeople) should quit speculating about space and time as if they were separable." Well, Einstein had a gift for explaining complex notions in comprehensible terms, and here is what he had to say on this matter (Relativity, p. 61):

The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than the world in which we live in a four-dimensional space-time continuum.

Space is a three dimensional continuum. By this we mean that it is possible to describe the position of a point (at rest) by means of three numbers (co-ordinates) x, y, z, and that there is an indefinite number of points in the neighbourhood of this one, the position of which can be described by co-ordinates such as x₁, y₁, z₁ which may be as near as we choose to the respective values of the co-ordinates x, y, z of the first point. In virtue of the latter property we speak of a "continuum," and owing to the fact that there are three co-ordinates we speak of it as being "three-dimensional."

Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called "world" by Minkowski is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers, three space-coordinates x, y, z and a time co-ordinate, the time value t. The "world" is in this sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as many "neighbouring" events (realised or at least thinkable) as we care to choose, the co-ordinates x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁ of which differ by an indefinitely small amount from those of the event x, y, z, t originally considered. (My italics.)

This is all fine and dandy, but need I point out that when people normally talk about time, they are not thinking of time as a coordinate? Indeed, many philosophers, such as Schopenhauer and Bergson, conceived of time in its primary sense as a subjective sense of duration. Schopenhauer, for example, gives a very interesting and plausible explanation of why time, subjectively considered, passes much more quickly as we grow older, and why time passes more quickly when we are enjoying ourselves than when we are not. As I noted previously, the notion that space and time are "absolute" was not (for the most part) a mistake made by philosophers or laymen (most people don't think in these terms); rather, it was an erroneous assumption made by scientists, especially Newtonians.

In sum, it would be a mistake for modern physicists to lecture the likes of Schopenhauer and Bergson on the real meaning of time. The word is and has been used in various ways. Physicists don't have a monopoly on word meaning.

I say this without the least objection to how the word "time" is used by physicists. But I do have a bit of a problem when physicists speak of a four-dimensional universe. If they wish to say that space and time are not independent variables, fine -- I have no problem with that. But the word "dimension" suggests a number of things that are not entailed by the mathematical use of coordinates. This is but one example where we must be very careful when translating the technical definitions of physics into conventional language. When due caution is not exercised, it is with good reason that laypersons will, as Einstein points out, get the impression that physicists are dealing with mysteries of the occult.

Ghs

In short, you are reading more into my statements than what they actually say. In typical fashion, I asked for clarity of meaning; and when this wasn't forthcoming, I expressed skepticism about whether physicists had adequately explained their own scientific findings. As I have said many times, a degree in physics does not exempt one from the cognitive obligation to make sense.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I can barely contain my excitement. I am sure to learn a lot from an exposition of the new scholasticism, as authorities are invoked by the truckload.

This made me think of a favorite quote, but you have to do quite a bit of reading to really get the context. The tie-in is at the end, if you want to skip to it.

"Solving a mystery is not the same as deducing from first principles. Nor does it

amount simply to collecting a number of particular data from which to infer a general law. It means,

rather, facing one or two or three particular data apparently with nothing in common, and trying to

imagine whether they could represent so many instances of a general law you don’t yet know, and which

perhaps has never been pronounced. To be sure, if you know, as the philosopher says, that man, the

horse, and the mule are all without bile and are all long-lived, you can venture the principle that animals

without bile live a long time. But take the case of animals with horns. Why do they have horns? Suddenly

you realize that all animals with horns are without teeth in the upper jaw This would be a fine discovery, if

you did not also realize that, alas, there are animals without teeth in the upper jaw who, however, do not

have horns: the camel, to name one. And finally you realize that all animals without teeth in the upper jaw

have four stomachs. Well, then, you can suppose that one who cannot chew well must need four

stomachs to digest food better. But what about the horns? You then try to imagine a material cause for

horns—say, the lack of teeth provides the animal with an excess of osseous matter that must emerge

somewhere else. But is that sufficient explanation? No, because the camel has no upper teeth, has four

stomachs, but does not have horns. And you must also imagine a final cause. The osseous matter

emerges in horns only in animals without other means of defense. But the camel has a very tough hide and

doesn’t need horns. So the law could be ...”

“But what have horns to do with anything?” I asked impatiently. “And why are you concerned with

animals having horns?”

“I have never concerned myself with them, but the Bishop of Lincoln was greatly interested in them,

pursuing an idea of Aristotle. Honestly, I don’t know whether his conclusions are the right ones, nor

have I ever checked to see where the camel’s teeth are or how many stomachs he has. I was trying to tell

you that the search for explicative laws in natural facts proceeds in a tortuous fashion. In the face

of some inexplicable facts you must try to imagine many general laws, whose connection with your facts

escapes you. Then suddenly, in the unexpected connection of a result, a specific situation, and one of

those laws, you perceive a line of reasoning that seems more convincing than the others. You try

applying it to all similar cases, to use it for making predictions, and you discover that your intuition

was right. But until you reach the end you will never know which predicates to introduce into your

reasoning and which to omit. And this is what I am doing now. I line up so many disjointed elements

and I venture some hypotheses. I have to venture many, and many of them are so absurd that I would

be ashamed to tell them to you. You see, in the case of the horse Brunellus, when I saw the clues I

guessed many complementary and contradictory hypotheses: it could be a runaway horse, it could be that

the abbot had ridden down the slope on that fine horse, it could be that one horse, Brunellus, had left

the tracks in the snow and another horse, Favellus, the day before, the traces of mane in the bush, and

the branches could have been broken by some men. I didn’t know which hypothesis was right until I saw the

cellarer and the servants anxiously searching. Then I understood that the Brunellus hypothesis was the

only right one, and I tried to prove it true, addressing the monks as I did. I won, but I might also have

lost. The others believed me wise because I won, but they didn’t know the many instances in which I have been

foolish because I lost, and they didn’t know that a few seconds before winning I wasn’t sure I wouldn’t lose.

Now, for the events of the abbey I have many fine hypotheses, but there is no evident fact that allows me to

say which is best. So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now. Let me think no

more, until tomorrow at least.”

I understood at that moment my master’s method of reasoning, and it seemed to me quite alien to that of

the philosopher, who reasons by first principles, so that his intellect almost assumes the ways of the divine

intellect.

I understood that, when he didn’t have an answer, William proposed many to himself, very different one from

another. I remained puzzled.

“But then ...” I venture to remark, “you are still far from the solution. ...”

“I am very close to one,” William said, “but I don’t know which.”

“Therefore you don’t have a single answer to your questions?”

“Adso, if I did I would teach theology in Paris.”

“In Paris do they always have the true answer?”

“Never,” William said, “but they are very sure of their errors.”

Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose, Fourth Day, Vespers

And people complain that Rand wrote long philosophical speeches for her characters...

BTW, when they refer the "The Philosopher", they mean Aristotle.

[Robert Campbell]

Diana Hsieh is still clinging to her ARI affiliation.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/12/open-thread-221.html#comment-106260224

At present, I'm not interested in hosting any discussions about the politics of the Objectivist movement. If you have questions about what qualifies, please e-mail me privately.

Apparently, she wants to believe that if she says nothing further about the internal politics of the Leonard Peikoff Institute, a position at the OAC awaits her.

Time will tell...

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Diana Hsieh is still clinging to her ARI affiliation.

http://blog.dianahsi...mment-106260224

At present, I'm not interested in hosting any discussions about the politics of the Objectivist movement. If you have questions about what qualifies, please e-mail me privately.

Apparently, she wants to believe that if she says nothing further about the internal politics of the Leonard Peikoff Institute, a position at the OAC awaits her.

Time will tell...

The Objectivist movement has politics?

What happened to reason?

--Brant

[Starbuckle]

"The Objectivist movement has politics? What happened to reason?"

Words have letters? What happened to signification?