SCORECARD Out-take (a little story)

[Ellen Stuttle]

I posted this as a kind of "out-take" from the original thread, since I think it would be buried in the complexities which have developed there. I was reflecting, in absentia from the computer screen, on the "SCORECARD" progression so far and I began to think of an incident from my past which might be interesting to some.

First, a segment from a reply of mine to a post by Roger:

(as Peikoff points out in IPP) you must remember and at least ~implicitly~ be stating as the preamble to your generalization: on the basis of the available evidence, in other words, within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following is the proper conclusion to draw [....] Certainty is contextual and readily available, so long as one does not hold out for the Platonic, incorrigeable variety.

Thus "certainty" consists in always being aware that the conclusion you draw today on the basis of your most diligent assessment of the evidence currently available might turn out tomorrow (or sooner or later) to be wrong.

The quote from Leonard Peikoff well illustrates to me a problem which has kept surfacing in the discussion, that of differences in usage of a term leading to an appearance of disagreement where (in some cases) there isn't one. What Peikoff is describing as being sure of one's conclusions is what the rest of the world, I'd venture to say, would describe as being aware that we never can be sure what conclusions further evidence might support.

Here's the little story which surfaced:

In 1972, I'd started work toward a graduate degree in psychology at the University of Connecticut. I'd taken some previous graduate courses, had toyed around -- do I want to?, don't I? -- over the question of going on to a doctorate. Partway into the semester I decided, no, I didn't want to; intellectually inclined though I am, I didn't want to end up teaching. (Instead, I ended up working in publishing, which suited me very well.)

The above preface is needed to explain the circumstances: a friend of Larry's and mine, a very good driver as well as being a strong, able-bodied assist to lifting weight, had been enlisted to help both with the packing of and the driving of the UHaul transporting my worldly possessions, including my beloved piano, and me and Larry and said friend, from Storrs, Connecticut, to Brooklyn, New York, the locale of Larry's then-apartment. The UHaul's windshield wipers were broken; rain started -- not a downpour but heavy enough that I couldn't discern more than a blur of the surrounding traffic. My friend had exceptionally good vision, and, as I've said, was a very good driver. Thus I didn't feel scared, as I would have with anyone else I knew then at the wheel.

I asked him, not worried, just curious: "How can you navigate in this?"

He replied: "I just keep estimating."

The answer has stayed with me ever since as a perfect description of how science navigates, more widely of how life, how the very process of evolution "navigates." The process "just keep estimating."

Ellen

___

Edited September 19, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Alfonso Jones]

Ellen -

Great story. And the Peikoff material - In my opinion, this is an example of the problems in his reasoning. He purports to have something dramatically different to say about certainty, wait, that's "contextual certainty." But when you get done reading and thinking carefully - - - what is there to be excited about, except the unorthodox use of terms and the pretended disagreements?

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Barbara Branden]

What the quote from Peikoff says is that certainty means we can know we've done our best to learn the truth, but we cannot be sure we know the truth. I'm not aware of any skeptic who would disagree.

Ellen, where is the original thread where this was discussed? I want to see if I'm missing something crucial that will make some sense out of the quote.

Barbara

[Ellen Stuttle]

What the quote from Peikoff says is that certainty means we can know we've done our best to learn the truth, but we cannot be sure we know the truth. I'm not aware of any skeptic who would disagree.

Ellen, where is the original thread where this was discussed? I want to see if I'm missing something crucial that will make some sense out of the quote.

Barbara

It's this thread, Barbara -- a 332-post thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=4464

Your question leads me to wonder, though, if you're unaware that all you have to do to find the original place from which a post is quoted is to click the little arrow to the right of the poster's name in the quote box.

For instance:

[....]

Click the little arrow and you'll be taken to your post.

Similarly, if you click the little arrow next to the quote from REB in post #1, you'll be taken to the place in the original thread from which I did the out-take.

Ellen

___

[syrakusos]

He replied: "I just keep estimating."

About 10 years ago, I heard a David Kelley tape about reality and reason. He asked rhetorically if post-modernists actually drive their cars as if reality were a matter of unknowable opinion. That stayed with me. Many theories can be tested by driving.

Thanks for the story. It was both cogent and germane.

[Barbara Branden]

Thanks, Ellen. No, I didn't know.

Barbara