Ethics and Nature

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Soft science is not science unless it is empirically falsifiable (in principle, if not in practical fact).  The disciplines  of metaphysics , psychology, ethics, aesthetics are NOT sciences and never were.  Only parts of economics is well founded on proper statistical analysis.  That are quantitative disciplines such as scheduling, logistics, cost estimation and software construction which are not science (they lack generality)  but are very akin to engineering which is supported by scientific principles. 

The "soft sciences" are basically bullshit and their practitioners sometimes use the appearance of scientific method and rigor to hide the rot.

Of the things that are not science,  I like art.  Art of various sorts make no pretense to being "scientific".  They appeal to our non-rational, non-quantitative aspect.   Artists generally do not pretend to be what they are not. 

Therefore you are using bullshit to refute bullshit?

To say something as expressed is bullshit implicitly posits that there is a way--not a scientific way--that is not bullshit trapping you in a basic contradiction you are purblind to.

--Brant

so that's what you think of Ayn Rand: bullshitter (getting that out of you was like pulling teeth)

individual rights: bullshit

morality of rational self interest: bullshit

philosophy of science--metaphysics and epistemology applied and common with Objectivism: bullshit unless used by scientists and of no other use elsewhere than in science?

etc., etc., etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

9 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Therefore you are using bullshit to refute bullshit?

To say something as expressed is bullshit implicitly posits that there is a way--not a scientific way--that is not bullshit trapping you in a basic contradiction you are purblind to.

--Brant

so that's what you think of Ayn Rand: bullshitter (getting that out of you was like pulling teeth)

individual rights: bullshit

morality of rational self interest: bullshit

philosophy of science--metaphysics and epistemology applied and common with Objectivism: bullshit unless used by scientists and of no other use elsewhere than in science?

etc., etc., etc.

Can  you quantify all that? In what part of our bodies can  you find rights.  Where in your body are rights  located.   

[SteveWolfer]

26 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In what part of our bodies can  you find rights.

In what part of the electron do you find spin?  In what part of the apple do you find gravity?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?

[BaalChatzaf]

15 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

In what part of the electron do you find spin?  In what part of the apple do you find gravity?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?

The entire electron has spin. And it can be detected.  How do you detect rights in other people?

[SteveWolfer]

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How do you detect rights in other people?

How were you able to decipher my words?  How do you empirically justify logic?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?

[BaalChatzaf]

8 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

How were you able to decipher my words?  How do you empirically justify logic?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?

logic is a relation between the premises and the conclusion.  Logically speaking a relation is a set of pairs., It is a subset of a Cartesian product of two sets.

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

Quote

Kernis, Grannemann, et al. (1989) found that the highest levels of self-reported angry and hostile responding were associated with participants who had high but unstable self-esteem scores.

What I know about high-self esteem is that it contributes to mental/emotional stability and it isn't, in itself unstable - there is a persistence in one's level of self-esteem.  It changes slowly, when it changes.   Again, it all goes back to really bad research design that is built around ignorance of the subject which makes possible a totally faulty measurement.

Meaty response, Steve. Thanks!  I will admit to not reading the paper beyond its abstract. I will do that and also read a sampling of the critical blowback over the years, and then read your comments again more deeply. I don't really have too many opinions on self-esteem, and have pretty much no opinion on Nathaniel Branden's published materials dealing with it. 

In general terms, one hideous habit in much scholarly tradition is over-larding the goose. During my brief studies in psychology in college, I always put in the lowest validity drawer those who pretended to be Top Drawer Theorists. If there is one thing the broad field of psychology does not need, it is more theory-laden geese. To my mind, psychological theories never really die and get buried, no matter how premature or demented. As with psychoanalysis, as with repressed memory, as with dissociation ... but that scornful attitude of mind probably comes from my earlier investigation of ''the research" and its therapeutic outfalls in the Memory Wars.  For me, a good and humble psychological inquiry is a treat and a treasure.  

We are fascinated with ourselves and each other and all the damage we can do each other 'psychologically.'  When someone can reasonably explain an aspect or two of human behaviour, I give them credit. Where they think they are Freud, I ready the compactor.  

It is good to have a critical, engaged psychologist active on the list! 

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

logic is a relation between the premises and the conclusion.  Logically speaking a relation is a set of pairs., It is a subset of a Cartesian product of two sets.

What part of that is physical?  Are you reporting on this understanding of "logic" from empirically demonstrated, falsifiable research?  Is this "hard science"?

[SteveWolfer]

4 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

To my mind, psychological theories never really die and get buried, no matter how premature or demented.

That's true.  But there is another side to it.  Most of the theoretical orientations arose out of just one or two striking ideas.  And often, the idea was valuable, but didn't justify the creation of an entire theory around it.  Often that theoretical orientation became, as a whole, as you stated, premature and demented.

Psychoanalysis was the first time that "talk therapy" became an official therapeutic agent.  Freud correctly identified projection as a defense mechanism and theorized that if the analyst was as opaque as possible that the patient would project onto the analyst and that this would have the effect of letting the patient move to freeing themselves of this defense.  So, he liked the fact that men wore heavy beards (harder to see their facial expressions), and he positioned the patient on the couch and sat out of their sight, and he let as little as possible be known about himself.  Easier to project anger at a father figure onto this opaque analyst than if they were eye to eye and transparent as to who they were.  That was a case of a valuable identification of a subconsciously mediated defense mechanism generating much of a set of techniques for talk therapy that are very ineffective.

One reason some of the theories don't die is the one or two valuable nuggets the theory formed around.  There are other reasons as to why the demented and premature and ineffective parts aren't pruned away.

Going back to Freud... this isn't the time of the place, but there are some very interesting aspects to him, and his history.  (E.g., he modeled his developmental theories on Darwin's theory of evolution and in his home he had all of Darwin's writings in well-read, heavily annotated forms.)  I'm NOT a Freudian and disagree with most of his theoretical orientation and techniques, but I studied under a Freudian at a clinic where I practiced for a while (part of the University... he was the Dean).  He had studied under Jung in Switzerland after getting his PhD at UCLA.  He wrote a fun book entitled "Makers of Psychology" - I've made that a link so that anyone interested can look at the two reviews of the book on Amazon.  Harvey had a great sense of humor, was endlessly curious about different theories of psychology, and was one of the people who helped me understand the difference between theoretical orientation and therapeutic technique.

[KorbenDallas]

35 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

What part of that is physical?  Are you reporting on this understanding of "logic" from empirically demonstrated, falsifiable research?  Is this "hard science"?

Steve, Ba'al isn't a big fan of categorical logic...

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

Steve, Ba'al isn't a big fan of categorical logic...

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to argue that all that exists includes more than that which is physical.

[KorbenDallas]

8 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to argue that all that exists includes more than that which is physical.

Pretty sure he's a physical determinist, too... so essences might be a bit hard to apply... heh

(I still like him though..)

Edited July 10, 2016 by KorbenDallas
correction to physical, added sentiment

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

What part of that is physical?  Are you reporting on this understanding of "logic" from empirically demonstrated, falsifiable research?  Is this "hard science"?

There are abstract terms which refer to concrete items collectively.  For example a concrete specific relation is that of father-child or mother-child.  The terms are collective but the referents are well knows specific things.  Surely you know your father and your mother. 

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 Surely you know your father and your mother.

My goodness, what are you implying :-)

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The terms are collective but the referents are well knows specific things.

Yes, the referents are specific things (my mother and my father and me - made of atoms, each and every one of us), but when you start talking about fathers or mothers collectively that collective term is a concept and concepts aren't physical.  You could say the concept "refers" to a physical thing, but by being a referent means it isn't the thing.

And then when you talk about a relationship you've clearly left the world of atoms.  What is the physical make up of a 'relationship' as such?  It is my fond hope that you will come to see the insurmountable (and unnecessary) difficulty of insisting that only the physical exists... since it cuts out thought, relationships, emotions, values, rights... so much of what is clearly present and important. 

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Can  you quantify all that? In what part of our bodies can  you find rights.  Where in your body are rights  located.   

Can you quantify your own statement?

Rights are not in a body. Human nature is the basis of human rights which in turn is a human invention.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to argue that all that exists includes more than that which is physical.

Well, you have two different existences both physical or reducible to the physical, archetypically consciousness respecting the latter. "More than which is physical" seems to be that which is not experienced physically such as consciousness and the products of consciousness such as ideas which may in turn be given physical expression in turn experienced not purely as physical such as art for the intervention of consciousness. Also, the discussion here on OL on the experiencing of the sublime (and what it is).

--Brant

you can't have metaphysics without epistemology no matter how hard Bob tries, nor science either

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In what part of our bodies can  you find rights.

 

I started with a couple of Internet definitions:

1. A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

 

2. Moral: That which is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character and goals.  (Not the best definition, but it'll do for now)

 

Putting those two together gives:  A moral principle would be a fundamental truth or proposition relating to the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character and goals.
--------------

 

Ayn Rand's definition: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

 

Combining that with combination above gives this:

 

An individual right is a fundamental proposition relating to man's freedom of action in a social context.  It serves the purpose of marking the limits of freely initiated behavior and the relations between men so as to allow the greatest flourishing by granting the greatest restriction of initiated force.  (somewhat freely modified to suit our purpose of flourishing and to incorporate the fact that right are only violated by the initiation of force).

 

And then, to get where I wanted to go... which is to show that individual rights are relationships:

 

Individual rights arise out of human nature and the requirements of human life.  They constitute a moral relationship between the action of an individual and an object, such as a property right that defines an action, say the sale of a car that is properly owned by the individual.

 

Individual -->Rightful Action-->Object

[BaalChatzaf]

18 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

In what part of the electron do you find spin?  In what part of the apple do you find gravity?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?

The electron is a "point particle" with no parts.  Contrast this with nucleons (protons and neutrons) which consist of quarks and gluons.  Muons are also composed of quarks. Quarks have spin + or 1 1/2 and gluons (which are bosons) have spin 1. 

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Quoting me, "In what part of the apple do you find gravity?  In what part of a post do you find truth?  And what parts of Popper's argument  in favor of falsifiability do we find falsifiability?  How can you justify, empirically, that nothing exists that isn't physical (by some sort of theory or set of beliefs that are themselves physical?)  In what part of an argument do you find logic?"

You haven't given us any guidance on these questions.

[Anirudh Silai]

On 7/9/2016 at 2:23 PM, SteveWolfer said:

My Masters was in Clinical Psychology, I studied under Nathaniel Branden (the expert on self-esteem) for many years while going through California's licensing for psychotherapists.   And I've watched, with great sadness, what has been done to the concept of 'self-esteem' since the late 60s.

I've read that research paper you refer to.  It was commissioned by the APA and the psychologist who carried it out, Roy Baumeister,  (who was associated with the APA in the past), 'measured' self-esteem with a Likert scale drawn from answers to a set of 5 questions given prison inmates.  Questions like "Do you think you have high self-esteem?"  Or, "Do you like yourself?"  He did an almost identical study where the same asinine measurement technique was used to rate the self-esteem of bullies in elementary school.  The conclusion was that high self-esteem leads to bullying.  This particular psychologist has done a number of what I'd call anti-self-esteem 'studies.'  He has some strange, negative ideas about self-esteem.

Roy Baumeister is a "social psychologist" who has done a great deal of research, written or edited about 20 books,  and is respected in the field (which says a lot to me about the state of psychology as a discipline).  Much of his work has been about what he has posits as the "need to belong" which is at the heart of his theoretical orientation.  He has written that “the defining thrust of human psychological evolution was selection in favor of cultural capability" by which he means a socializing capability, and in his view the major capacities that we exercise are all used to help us act in pro-social means.  He describes free will as an evolutionary advanced mechanism that helps us act in more pro-social ways.

The misunderstandings about what self-esteem really is have been increasing with time.  About 15 years ago I edited the self-esteem page in Wikipedia... or at least I tried.  It was a mess and I wasn't able to make enough head-way to continue.  I just took a look at the page and it has grown worse.  The current set of editors believe that "Self-esteem is attractive as a social psychological construct because researchers have conceptualized it as an influential predictor of certain outcomes..."  Modern psychology is more about research (much of which is ill-conceived and shoddily conducted) while a kind of political correctness drives theoretical orientation, goals and purposes.

Like every other soft science it has become about society, about social constructs, about cultural relativity, and subjectivity.

I see what you mean. You might have seen the ABC 20/20 report by John Stossel called "Feel Good about Failure." Stossel actually uses Baumeister in his own argument that self-esteem comes from achievement. But Baumeister defined self-esteem in a different way than Branden, I guess. Thanks for the correction!

[SteveWolfer]

20 minutes ago, Anirudh Silai said:

...self-esteem comes from achievement.

I can't recommend Nathaniel Branden's book "Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" too highly.  It not only gives one a clear idea of what self-esteem is, and the role it plays in our life, but it also explains the specific causes of self-esteem.

[Anirudh Silai]

After finishing the "personal integrity" section of Branden, I feel it has raised a question: Suppose Adam steals from Bob. If Adam dis-values theft, then he will surely feel guilty because he has also defrauded himself in a sense - through his mind. But what if Adam does not dis-value theft?

[SteveWolfer]

51 minutes ago, Anirudh Silai said:

But what if Adam does not dis-value theft?

There are a number of issues here. 

1. Unless this is some kind of completely cuckoo society where no one dis-values theft, Adam will need to be dishonest, sneaky, and deceitful.  He will have to lie.  So those are other 'values' that either he dis-values, or he will fail his personal integrity. 

2. When a person can't be open about who they are and what they do, when they have to live deceptively, they do great damage to their self-esteem because there are critical areas where they cannot be self-assertive (putting out into the world who one is). 

3.  I'm just guessing that many thieves, in more or less normal societies, who say that they don't dis-value theft, are at least partly lying to themselves and repressing their negatives feeling... and that puts a limit on their self-esteem.  If means they are failing to be as self-accepting as they could. (Self-acceptance is a major pillar of self-esteem, and one that may have no upper limit)

4. It is also likely to be an issue of personal responsibility.  We need to feel that we are carrying our own weight.  A thief is a kind of parasite. 

5. A stupid person might not grasp that, but most others will find that they can only avoid that mental/emotional conflict by some kind of failure to exercise conscious awareness and instead to either blank out thoughts that conflict, or engage in denial and/or emotional repression and/or an irrational projection. 

6. Although it isn't explicit as one of the six pillars, there is a great source of self-esteem and joy that comes out of those sets of actions that result in being productive.  And there are aspects of a normal career, one that admits to a rational amount of ambition, that is denied to the typical thief.

One can nibble around the edges, asking questions, probing on something of an academic level into what Branden is saying.  And that is all good - it is part of critical thinking and the way we should come to our own conclusions - making them our own.  But then, with this subject - what makes self-esteem - we have to find a very different mental/emotional approach.  We have to pursue using our minds in that way.  It is like the difference between studying techniques for acquiring physical fitness, and actually starting a program of exercise and nutrition.