Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology


curi

Recommended Posts

Bob,

Bullshit.

Without philosophy, there would be no capitalism to sell you precious goodies.

I could go on and on.

Your arguments are what happens when a person divorces the human mind from the rest of existence.

Science does not produce stuff because of that. It produces it in spite of it.

I have yet to see a goody produced from the big bang, for instance.

Theoretical science and practical science are about as far apart goody-wise as a toy cap gun is from a bazooka in shooting explosive rockets.

Michael

Blast on. I still have the bad goods on Aristotle and his buddies. Physics did not progress a furlong until Gallileo, Kepler and Newton purge physical science of Aristotle's nonsense. Aristotle could be forgiven his errors if had had even tried to check out his conclusions. But he didn't.

But Hume said it best: Amen!

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Amen!

ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing I later concluded as a result of some subsequent discussion - on ARCHN - is that Daniel doesn't share Popper's own strong commitment to realist metaphysics.

I heard that my name was being mentioned in vain around here, so I'll just drop in to correct this error.

I do share Popper's commitment to realist metaphysics. Ellen is simply mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Daniel...

I don't call support of "it might all be a dream" and of "who knows, we might be figments of a virtual reality" and of the opinion of a poster who bizarrely internally contradictorily claimed that he'd convinced himself that he might be a brain in vat and of Greg's saying that a person holding to an imaginal reality could just change the meaning of "proof" to avoid self-exclusion problems...signs of commitment to realist metaphysics. Looked to me like you were fine with dismissing realist metaphysics as long as the dismisser was someone negative toward Rand.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Daniel...

I don't call support of "it might all be a dream" and of "who knows, we might be figments of a virtual reality" and of the opinion of a poster who bizarrely internally contradictorily claimed that he'd convinced himself that he might be a brain in vat and of Greg's saying that a person holding to an imaginal reality could just change the meaning of "proof" to avoid self-exclusion problems...signs of commitment to realist metaphysics. Looked to me like you were fine with dismissing realist metaphysics as long as the dismisser was someone negative toward Rand.

Ellen

Hi Ellen,

I suggest you have either misunderstood or misremembered the conversation, which I seem to recall is this one. Or perhaps I did not make my own position clear enough, though reading it back it seems clear enough to me.

Interestingly, I suspect you have misunderstood it, and it's possible it's a root misunderstanding as your comment #48 makes what I think is a similar mistake.

I am travelling today, so can only reply briefly now. But it's always interesting to try to reconstruct your opponent's argument rather than simply disagree with it. So if you were me reading your comment #48, what do you think I would take to be the root error in it?

At any rate, I can happily testify that contrary to Ellen's impressions, Popper's cosmology - which holds the physical world as primary - is my preferred one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Daniel...

I don't call support of "it might all be a dream" and of "who knows, we might be figments of a virtual reality" and of the opinion of a poster who bizarrely internally contradictorily claimed that he'd convinced himself that he might be a brain in vat and of Greg's saying that a person holding to an imaginal reality could just change the meaning of "proof" to avoid self-exclusion problems...signs of commitment to realist metaphysics. Looked to me like you were fine with dismissing realist metaphysics as long as the dismisser was someone negative toward Rand.

Ellen

Hi Ellen,

I suggest you have either misunderstood or misremembered the conversation, which I seem to recall is this one. Or perhaps I did not make my own position clear enough, though reading it back it seems clear enough to me.

Interestingly, I suspect you have misunderstood it, and it's possible it's a root misunderstanding as your comment #48 makes what I think is a similar mistake.

I am travelling today, so can only reply briefly now. But it's always interesting to try to reconstruct your opponent's argument rather than simply disagree with it. So if you were me reading your comment #48, what do you think I would take to be the root error in it?

At any rate, I can happily testify that contrary to Ellen's impressions, Popper's cosmology - which holds the physical world as primary - is my preferred one.

Hi Daniel, happy trails.

I have not followed your exchanges with the Greatest Living Philosopher as it is all above my head, but is it Mr or \ms Temple's contention that as well as not understanding Rand, you do not understand Popper either? And that goes for Greg N, your mother, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all?

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Bullshit.

Without philosophy, there would be no capitalism to sell you precious goodies.

I could go on and on.

Your arguments are what happens when a person divorces the human mind from the rest of existence.

Science does not produce stuff because of that. It produces it in spite of it.

I have yet to see a goody produced from the big bang, for instance.

Theoretical science and practical science are about as far apart goody-wise as a toy cap gun is from a bazooka in shooting explosive rockets.

Michael

Blast on. I still have the bad goods on Aristotle and his buddies. Physics did not progress a furlong until Gallileo, Kepler and Newton purge physical science of Aristotle's nonsense. Aristotle could be forgiven his errors if had had even tried to check out his conclusions. But he didn't.

But Hume said it best: Amen!

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Amen!

ba'al Chatzaf

"All knowledge is in the Koran . . . . "

--Brant

uh, where are your numbers and where are his, BTW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you have either misunderstood or misremembered the conversation, which I seem to recall is this one. Or perhaps I did not make my own position clear enough, though reading it back it seems clear enough to me.

That was funny. In fact fire will burn water soaked paper.

--Brant

anon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you have either misunderstood or misremembered the conversation, which I seem to recall is this one. Or perhaps I did not make my own position clear enough, though reading it back it seems clear enough to me.

That was funny. In fact fire will burn water soaked paper.

--Brant

anon.

Under certain conditions, right?

Carol

trying to learn epistemology the easy way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Daniel, happy trails.

I have not followed your exchanges with the Greatest Living Philosopher as it is all above my head, but is it Mr or \ms Temple's contention that as well as not understanding Rand, you do not understand Popper either? And that goes for Greg N, your mother, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all?

Carol

From what I have read, The Best Living Philosopher seems to contend that few if any understand Rand and Popper as well as he does. This is hardly surprising, given that he is The Best Living Philosopher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked to me like you were fine with dismissing realist metaphysics as long as the dismisser was someone negative toward Rand.

Ellen,

I've had this trouble with Daniel myself.

He's actually a nice guy (I like him), but he's all about his agenda and oneupmanship.

The way I deal with him is to go to his level of snob-dueling. It's fun if you don't take it seriously. I know I get quite a chuckle at times.

One day I hope this blows over and we can discuss ideas. He's pretty clever in using his brain for trifles, so I wager there might be some true insight lurking in the shadows of his soul.

But for now, we must settle for vanity and Don Quixote causes.

Still, I wonder what he would be like addressing some intellectual meat instead of the crumbs.

:)

(I'm at half-mirth, but I'm also serious. I bet he has some good ideas hiding deep within him.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, I can happily testify that contrary to Ellen's impressions, Popper's cosmology - which holds the physical world as primary - is my preferred one.

I didn't say anything about cosmology, and I don't know what Popper's cosmology, if he had one, was.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, I can happily testify that contrary to Ellen's impressions, Popper's cosmology - which holds the physical world as primary - is my preferred one.

I didn't say anything about cosmology, and I don't know what Popper's cosmology, if he had one, was.

Ellen

Oh, ok. It looks like this. It's Popper's theory of the metaphysical structure of the universe if you like.

I am rather fond of this theory. You will note it is primarily a realist one.

I'm not sure what else I need to add. For whatever reason, either through poor explanation on my part or misunderstanding on yours, you've ended up with the wrong opinion as to my views. It's of no great importance, but just so you know I am as committed to a realist view of the world as Popper or any other epistemological fallibilist is. (And yes, I agree that fallibilism too might be a mistake.)

As luck would have it, over at criticalrationalism.net Lee Kelly has just written a short essay on this very question. By coincidence Lee was one of the participants in your Great Tree Frog Question over at the ARCHNblog. Hopefully that will give you an idea of the CR view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I can't make anything coherent of your views. They seem to me like a verbal shell game.

But if you're trying to inform me of Popper's cosmology (which in my usage, standard usage in current physics, means a scientific theory of the universe and its origins), the Wikipedia link you provided goes to the wrong page.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I can't make anything coherent of your views. They seem to me like a verbal shell game.

But if you're trying to inform me of Popper's cosmology (which in my usage, standard usage in current physics, means a scientific theory of the universe and its origins), the Wikipedia link you provided goes to the wrong page.

Ellen

Perhaps he was trying to link to this. Note the last line likens Popper's view to Cartesian dualism, not to be confused with Barnes' style of arguing Barnesian duelism. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't make out my views that's fine. Personally I don't think Popper's views are a "shell game". I think he's a serious thinker. Alternatively if you don't think I'm portraying Critical Rationalism properly you're welcome to take your views - for example The Great Tree Frog Question - to some expert CR commenters and see how you get on. I've offered a few places in the past. Have you ever taken them up? I also offered Lee Kelly's essay just now, who has a similar view to mine. But perhaps you think he's playing a "shell game" too.

Re:cosmology, there's no need to be pedantic. Broadly, it just means a view of how the universe is structured. You can have a religious or even mythical cosmology. It's not a strictly scientific term.

At any rate, there' no need to make a Federal case out of it. I believe in the primacy of physical reality; that's all you need to know should you feel the need to cite me on the subject in future...:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't make out my views that's fine. Personally I don't think Popper's views are a "shell game".

He shows how Barnes duelism works. Ellen refers to Barnes' "shell game." He responds as if she said Popper's "shell game."

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't make out my views that's fine. Personally I don't think Popper's views are a "shell game".

He shows how Barnes duelism works. Ellen refers to Barnes' "shell game." He responds as if she said Popper's "shell game."

.

Thank you, Merlin, for noticing Daniel's switch of referent.

Ellen

EDIT: Actually, Daniel does offer the alternative of my thinking he's not portraying Critical Rationalism correctly. A basic problem there. Since I don't succeed at getting coherence from Daniel's explications, I can't tell what they portray, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Daniel if he cares.

:smile:

I'm serious. Ask him.

He might say yes. He might say no. He might say both or change from one day to another. Or he might be constant. It's doesn't matter. What he's aiming at isn't idea. it's posture and agenda. Cheap thrill and fooling people.

So even though I'm chuckling, I'm serious.

He isn't.

:smile:

About ideas, that is. It's the marketer's dilemma. (Daniel's an ad man.) You churn out so much bullshit, you start believing your own bullshit after a while, but you know it's bullshit, so it doesn't really matter. :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt from the article by Lee Kelly which Daniel linked to in his post #64.

http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2013/07/07/the-quest-for-doubt/

This is as far as I've gotten reading the article. *

I wanted to pause to copy this excerpt and to draw attention to a word which is slipped in, the word "interesting."

That insertion was used in the ARCHN tree-frog discussion also. Being sure of such a commonplace as that one isn't a tree frog isn't "interesting." I suppose that the sorts of questions which qualify as "interesting" are questions such as whether or not some variant of Big Bang cosmology is true. However, it does seem to me that as people go about living their lives, an enormous number of commonplace issues are a whole lot more important to functioning than are abstract issues of scientific theory.

Method of Doubt

Our fallibility is ubiquitous and absolute. If we take it seriously, then it permeates everything and is distributed equally. Fallibilism is a general principle; it goes all the way down.

Fallibilists deny that we should be certain that something exists. However, this isn't because we deny the validity or conclusion of the argument, but rather because we unfuse our norms concerning certainty - or what can and cannot be said - from our judgements about what is true. Doubt is no longer what remains when rational justification falls short, but is an ever present levy to hold back the tides of our hubris. Rather than seeing doubt as an obstacle to "certain truth," it's seen as the first step toward "uncertain truth," and all the interesting truths are of the latter kind. [My emphasis -ES] Doubt, in this view, is not so much a feeling or disposition, but a principled stance. There's nothing wrong with feeling certain, or even just taking something for granted, but we should be suspicious of this certainty wherever it takes hold, and we should be ready to question, probe, and doubt once again.

Fallibilism changes the rules of the game; doubt no longer stands in the way of knowledge.

7/10/13 - the last section has been revised, thus:

Method of Doubt

Our fallibility is ubiquitous and absolute. If we take it seriously, then it permeates everything. Fallibilism is a general principle; it goes all the way down.

Fallibilists deny that we should be certain that something exists, but that doesn't mean they affirm that we shouldn't be certain that something exists. This is counterintuitive and may even seem incoherent, because it's normally taken for granted that we should regulate our certainty according to how strongly our beliefs are justified. However, if this normative presupposition is false, then it's no longer against the rules of the game to be either certain or doubtful whether something exists. Fallibilists unfuse their judgements concerning what is true or justified from their norms concerning how certain we should believe.

Doubt, for the fallibilist, isn't so much a feeling or disposition, but a principled stance. There's nothing especially wrong with feeling certain, or even just taking something for granted, but, if we take our fallibility serious, we should be suspicious of certainty, and we should be ready to question, probe, and doubt once again. Doubt is no longer what remains when rational justification falls short, but becomes an ever present levy to hold back the tides of our hubris. Rather than seeing doubt as an obstacle, it's seen as a psychological catalyst to the growth of knowledge.

Fallibilism is a game changer.

Ellen

* Upon returning to the article to continue reading it, I discovered that the passage I quoted is the end. I'd thought that the author was only getting underway, after an introductory series of assertions, with the presentation of some sort of thesis about the nature of knowledge.

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I can't make anything coherent of your views. They seem to me like a verbal shell game.

But if you're trying to inform me of Popper's cosmology (which in my usage, standard usage in current physics, means a scientific theory of the universe and its origins), the Wikipedia link you provided goes to the wrong page.

Ellen

Perhaps he was trying to link to this. Note the last line likens Popper's view to Cartesian dualism, not to be confused with Barnes' style of arguing Barnesian duelism. :smile:

A good read, and I plead ignorance about Popper, but it seems that like philosophers of 'scientism' he somewhat overlooks the essentiality of philosophy ... for individual man.

"He is generally regarded as one of the greatest of philosophers of science of the 20th century".

Oh, alright.

But further:

"Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical 'observationist-inductivist' form of the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification."

Whoa. Stop right there. Who's been saying that there is some comparison between Rand and he, when Popper tried to demolish one mainstay of her epistemology, the observation-inductive method? Whatever the metaphysical similarities, this has to be a deal-breaker.

Fallibilism, similarly to skepticism, (as far as I can tell) dilutes and eventually destroys the confidence an individual holds in his own consciousness.

With rigorous observation, induction, deduction, integration and conceptualization, an individual must well arrive at *enough* objective certainty - for his own life and its living. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" as someone mentioned, recently. Error is only a temporary part of the process.

The skeptical (fallibilist?) argument goes "I can't know everything - therefore it is doubtful I can know anything. Knowledge is 'something out there', which is only validated and known by an aggregated collection of experts. Who am I..?"

Small wonder that each approach evolves to completely contrasting moralities. (Popper flirted with communism.)

Is this an outcome of confusing the authoritative scientific theory of knowledge, with the individual's 'life-knowledge'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, there' no need to make a Federal case out of it. I believe in the primacy of physical reality; that's all you need to know should you feel the need to cite me on the subject in future...:-)

Yes, Sir! No further "need to know," says the commander. Problem even there: I don't know what the commander means by "the primacy of physical reality." The wording sounds like a causal theory and not what I understand Popper to mean by "realist metaphysics." (A belief that there is a reality which is what it is doesn't commit to a particular causal theory.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, there' no need to make a Federal case out of it. I believe in the primacy of physical reality; that's all you need to know should you feel the need to cite me on the subject in future...:-)

Yes, Sir! No further "need to know," says the commander. Problem even there: I don't know what the commander means by "the primacy of physical reality." The wording sounds like a causal theory and not what I understand Popper to mean by "realist metaphysics." (A belief that there is a reality which is what it is doesn't commit to a particular causal theory.)

Ellen

Woah, this seems to be unnecessarily touchy. I'm not "commanding" you to do anything. You said my views were so incoherent you couldn't make sense of them. So I just gave you the top line: I believe in the primacy of physical reality, or what Rand called somewhat less precisely the "primacy of existence". This is something I agree with Rand about, and where Popper and Rand agree too. I can't put it any more plainly than that.

If you don't understand what Popper meant by this, well go read some Popper (I command you!...;-)). I would explain myself, but you say my writing is completely incomprehensible. So avoid me and go to the source. I have already provided a link to the Wiki page on the subject.

All I can say is that in Popper's 3-world theory there is a reason he called the physical world "World 1"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't make out my views that's fine. Personally I don't think Popper's views are a "shell game".

He shows how Barnes duelism works. Ellen refers to Barnes' "shell game." He responds as if she said Popper's "shell game."

Merlin, that's unfair, not to mention being untrue. In my #67 I offered two options: 1) Popper is playing a shell game or 2) I am doing likewise by misrepresenting him.

As my own views follow Popper's views closely, it was entirely possible Ellen really meant 1). Alternatively it is quite possible I've got it wrong and she's right about Popper, or 2), in which case Ellen can test her views against the other Popper experts I suggested.

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