The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[George H. Smith]

Your caricatures of Rand remind me very much of how orthodox Objectivists treat Kant. The targets are different, but the juvenile antics are the same.

Well, if it's an unfair caricature, perhaps you could offer a corrective? Can you show specifically how Objectivist philosophic reasoning would help working scientists to better know what they mean by the terms "mind" and "brain"?

I appear to have overestimated your knowledge of philosophy. Since you seem unfamiliar with a topic called "philosophy of mind," you might want to begin by reading the Wiki article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

I think you will find that one cannot choose the most plausible option among different conceptions of "mind" by consulting a dictionary. Well, maybe you can -- since you seem to regard dictionaries as the ultimate fount of philosophic wisdom. No need to give any serious thought to how to formulate our basic concepts. Just consult a dictionary, learn how a word is generally used, and all your philosophical problems will be solved.

If a scientist claims that he is going to investigate the existence of God, it would of course be absurd to suggest that he give some serious philosophic thought to what he means by the word before undertaking his investigation. Only a fool like Rand would ever make such an outrageous claim. The scientist can always look up the word "God" in a dictionary, after all, and go from there.

Of course, there remains the problem of different dictionary definitions of terms like "mind" and "God." Perhaps the rigorous scientific procedure known as "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" will take care of that problem.

Ghs

Now you're just playing games. Read the question.

I did read the question. Read my answer, and the Wiki article. The latter will introduce you to a new world of information.

You mentioned "Objectivist philosophic reasoning." I mentioned philosophical reasoning, period, as did Rand. All this means, in this context, in thinking clearly, in terms of fundamentals, about the subject matter at hand ("mind," in this case) and working out, to one's own satisfaction, any problems that may arise in this regard.

As for playing games, that's something you are very familiar with. First, you misrepresented Rand's position, while crowing in the process; and then, when I corrected you, did you acknowledge your error? No, like a true orthodox anti-Randian, you refused to admit that Rand's dictum is little more than common sense -- something that very few philosophers of science would disagree with.

Ghs

[Daniel Barnes]

I did read the question. Read my answer, and the Wiki article. The latter will introduce you to a new world of information.

You mentioned "Objectivist philosophic reasoning." I mentioned philosophical reasoning, period, as did Rand. All this means, in this context, in thinking clearly, in terms of fundamentals, about the subject matter at hand ("mind," in this case) and working out, to one's own satisfaction, any problems that may arise in this regard.

Oh please. Are you really now claiming that when Rand says "philosophy" here:

AR: Philosophy would have to define the terms of that question. In asking what's the relationship between "mind" and "brain," scientists have to know what they mean by the two concepts. It's philosophy that would have to tell them the [general] definitions of those concepts. But then actually to find the specific relationship, that's a scientific question.

....she's not referring to, or even including, Objectivist philosophy? What other "fundamentals" necessary for "thinking clearly" are you suggesting she might be referring to, if not Objectivist ones?? Were any old, unspecified "philosophic fundamentals" AOK with Ayn Rand? I hardly think so. Hence my emphasis on Objectivist philosophic reasoning.

But let us try to take your claim seriously, and imagine that Rand really means that any and all "philosophy", in only the term's most vague and general sense, would be fine to define the terms scientists use. Of course we immediately run up against plenty of examples of Objectivists claiming that scientists, and science itself, has been "corrupted" by the wrong philosophical fundamentals.

So I think your interpretation of Rand's remarks seems rather unlikely.

Of course, I know full well why one might be reluctant to discuss Objectivism's actual contribution to the scientific, or even philosophic, study of "mind"....;-)

As for playing games, that's something you are very familiar with. First, you misrepresented Rand's position, while crowing in the process; and then, when I corrected you, did you acknowledge your error? No, like a true orthodox anti-Randian, you refused to admit that Rand's dictum is little more than common sense -- something that very few philosophers of science would disagree with.

As you can see, there is good reason to believe that it is in fact you who are quite wrong on this.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All words are made up out of whole cloth by human beings.

Bob,

From that perspective, you could also say that all science is made up out of whole cloth by human beings. And all math and logic, too. In fact, from that perspective, all thought is made up out of whole cloth by human beings.

Don't you find it odd how you cannot eliminate human beings from human thought?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Having fun?

Daniel's got a bug up his behind about Rand and it ain't coming out. It just keeps on itching.

Don't expect your discussion to go anywhere except a Rand wrong/Rand right duel. That's where it goes and that's where it will always end up, no matter what you bring up.

But if you want the discussion to get more interesting, ask Daniel about Popper. You will find that he is hell-bent on slaying Rand, but it's over far more than nothing. He wants to tear down one god to make sure the place of another is not threatened.

The fact that most people who like Rand don't think in terms like that (i.e., thinker-gods) doesn't seem to matter. I speak from years of discussing things with Daniel. He is one of the most religious people I know.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

All words are made up out of whole cloth by human beings.

Bob,

From that perspective, you could also say that all science is made up out of whole cloth by human beings. And all math and logic, too. In fact, from that perspective, all thought is made up out of whole cloth by human beings.

Don't you find it odd how you cannot eliminate human beings from human thought?

Michael

Science is made by human beings but it is not an arbitrary activity. One of the "rules" of the game is the the predictions made by scientific theories have to correspond to observable fact. That is the difference between science and most other "made up things".

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Definitions of concepts according to Objectivist epistemology are not arbitrary, either. They obey the same rigidity of structure as anything you might claim (math, logic, etc.).

It is impossible to define a table as being made out of liquid, for instance. It must be made with a solid or something that acts like a solid (in a huge stretch, say ice) and have the function of supporting smaller things used by humans.

In other words, tables are not made out of whole cloth, ever, nor can they be defined as if they were.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

But if you want the discussion to get more interesting, ask Daniel about Popper. You will find that he is hell-bent on slaying Rand, but it's over far more than nothing. He wants to tear down one god to make sure the place of another is not threatened.

Michael, you sure write some dumb-ass stuff.

I know pretty much as much as anyone where Popper crapped out. Let's see: that'd be things like his demarcation criterion, and his theory of verisimilitude, both of which he'd laboured over for years and regarded as vitally important. And I also know, directly from people who've worked with him, what an obnoxious little man he could be.

But then you don't know what the hell you're talking about half the time, so I don't take it personally...;-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on Daniel.

You can do better than that. Those are Popper crumbs, widely acknowledged among the people who like Popper. That is, unless you are suddenly contesting the whole notion of falsifiability as the standard of testing hypotheses. And if that is the case, this is the first I have heard about it.

Rand had a Russian accent, thought women would be lousy Presidents and considered homosexuality disgusting. She had an affair with NB. Any ortho-fundy will tell you that about Rand.

The idea behind voicing standard "sanctioned" criticisms is to make religion not look like religion.

Here's a real crumb for you.

How would you compare Rand's idea of definition against Popper's?

Whose god is stronger?

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

You can do better than that. Those are Popper crumbs, widely acknowledged among the people who like Popper. That is, unless you are suddenly contesting the whole notion of falsifiability as the standard of testing hypotheses.

Ha! "Popper crumbs" indeed. As if you would know!

So: to you the failure of Popper's verisimilitude is the same type of criticism as the fact that Rand had a Russian accent, or had an adulterous affair. What a joke.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

"Failure"? As in proven failure and generally accepted by all Popperians as failure? A simple Google search just now dispelled that idea for me.

The certainty of your statement here sure sounds like Valliant speaking for Objectivism.

But it is true that I do have difficulty with blind faith posing as something else.

I never have been able to get the nuances right...

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel,

"Failure"? As in proven failure and generally accepted by all Popperians as failure? A simple Google search just now dispelled that idea for me.

What, is Wikipedia down or something?...:-)

[Daniel Barnes]

"Failure"? As in proven failure and generally accepted by all Popperians as failure? A simple Google search just now dispelled that idea for me.

Listen: David Miller overturning Popper's theory of verisimilitude is probably the nearest equivalent to, I dunno, Leonard Peikoff overturning Rand's theory of contextual certainty.

(As if Peikoff was GHs or something...;-))

And Bill Bartley's criticism of the demarcation criterion is probably about the same as say Binswanger shooting down Rand's ethics.

But I forgive you, as you know not of what you speak.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Definitions of concepts according to Objectivist epistemology are not arbitrary, either. They obey the same rigidity of structure as anything you might claim (math, logic, etc.).

It is impossible to define a table as being made out of liquid, for instance. It must be made with a solid or something that acts like a solid (in a huge stretch, say ice) and have the function of supporting smaller things used by humans.

In other words, tables are not made out of whole cloth, ever, nor can they be defined as if they were.

Michael

How about a table being made up of (mostly) empty space?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

[i wrote a version of this post earlier, but it didn't show up. If it does appear eventually, I apologize for the duplication.]

I did read the question. Read my answer, and the Wiki article. The latter will introduce you to a new world of information.

You mentioned "Objectivist philosophic reasoning." I mentioned philosophical reasoning, period, as did Rand. All this means, in this context, in thinking clearly, in terms of fundamentals, about the subject matter at hand ("mind," in this case) and working out, to one's own satisfaction, any problems that may arise in this regard.

Oh please. Are you really now claiming that when Rand says "philosophy" here:

AR: Philosophy would have to define the terms of that question. In asking what's the relationship between "mind" and "brain," scientists have to know what they mean by the two concepts. It's philosophy that would have to tell them the [general] definitions of those concepts. But then actually to find the specific relationship, that's a scientific question.

....she's not referring to, or even including, Objectivist philosophy? What other "fundamentals" necessary for "thinking clearly" are you suggesting she might be referring to, if not Objectivist ones?? Were any old, unspecified "philosophic fundamentals" AOK with Ayn Rand? I hardly think so. Hence my emphasis on Objectivist philosophic reasoning.

But let us try to take your claim seriously, and imagine that Rand really means that any and all "philosophy", in only the term's most vague and general sense, would be fine to define the terms scientists use. Of course we immediately run up against plenty of examples of Objectivists claiming that scientists, and science itself, has been "corrupted" by the wrong philosophical fundamentals.

So I think your interpretation of Rand's remarks seems rather unlikely.

Of course, I know full well why one might be reluctant to discuss Objectivism's actual contribution to the scientific, or even philosophic, study of "mind"....;-)

As for playing games, that's something you are very familiar with. First, you misrepresented Rand's position, while crowing in the process; and then, when I corrected you, did you acknowledge your error? No, like a true orthodox anti-Randian, you refused to admit that Rand's dictum is little more than common sense -- something that very few philosophers of science would disagree with.

As you can see, there is good reason to believe that it is in fact you who are quite wrong on this.

Rand was making a general point about the relationship between philosophy and science -- one she made a number of other times as well. She typically stressed the fundamentality of philosophy, as we see in this passage from "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

Rand regarded epistemology ("a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge"} as the "foundation of philosophy" (ITOE 36, 74). Her metaphysics is quite minimalist and doesn't infringe on the proper domain of the physical sciences. As I noted before, much of what she says about the relationship between philosophy and the special sciences is fairly noncontroversial among philosophers of science.

Your strained and artificial interpretation of Rand follows your usual method, which I shall dub "Barnes's Razor." It goes something like this: When two or more interpretations of Rand are possible, the interpretation that makes her look the most incompetent, however implausible it may be, is preferable.

Barnes's Razor is essential to your life's goal of demonstrating to the world how much smarter you are than Rand, and how superior you are to anyone clueless enough to take her seriously as a philosopher.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Science is made by human beings but it is not an arbitrary activity. One of the "rules" of the game is the the predictions made by scientific theories have to correspond to observable fact. That is the difference between science and most other "made up things".

Are you aware that philosophy was regarded as a science for many centuries, and is still so regarded in some circles? The same is true of the subdivisions of philosophy, such as the "science of ethics." (There are books with this title.)

Of course, given your previous remarks about word meaning and definitions, I know that you would never call this usage "wrong" or "incorrect." That's very sporting of you, especially since I happen to think it is incorrect to call philosophy a "science." It is a cognitive discipline, but not a science. Perhaps you can dissuade me from this position by convincing me that philosophy really is a science, if enough people say it is. I look forward to being persuaded, since I would very much like to call myself a "scientist." This honorific label is a lot more impressive than "philosopher."

I would be even more interested in hearing your argument that Scientology is a legitimate science because many people call it such. Then you can move on to Christian Science. This is all a matter of convention after all. Millions of people have called these belief systems "sciences," so they must be sciences.

Ghs

[Daniel Barnes]

Barnes's Razor is essential to your life's goal of demonstrating to the world how much smarter you are than Rand, and how superior you are to anyone clueless enough to take her seriously as a philosopher.

Well, that can hardly be right, as I would probably consider you to be cleverer than me.

However, clever as you may be, it is clear you don't have much talent for online psychological analysis....;-)

Edited August 6, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Listen: David Miller overturning Popper's theory of verisimilitude is probably the nearest equivalent to, I dunno, Leonard Peikoff overturning Rand's theory of contextual certainty.

(As if Peikoff was GHs or something...;-))

And Bill Bartley's criticism of the demarcation criterion is probably about the same as say Binswanger shooting down Rand's ethics.

Daniel,

Oh my God!

You mean that Popper really did have a lifework's failure on verisimilitude and crapped out on demarcation criterion, and you not only know that for a fact, but you have the goods on Miller and Bartley? I mean, that changes the world--nothing will be the same now--and I bet this isn't even generally accepted among Popperians to boot.

Hell, that means you're better than they are, dude.

Wow...

I'm simply starry-eyed with envy and admiration...

I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight.

And, of course, I don't want to wake up tomorrow and realize how steeewpid I am compared to you, much less all those steeewpid Popperians...

You shore nuff puts me to shame on the depth of your faith...

However, clever as you may be, it is clear you don't have much talent for online psychological analysis....;-)

Oh... Oh... Oh...

The wit... The wit, dude...

I'm speechless...

I think I'm going to swoon...

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Oh my God!

You mean that Popper really did have a lifework's failure on verisimilitude and crapped out on demarcation criterion, and you not only know that for a fact, but you have the goods on Miller and Bartley? I mean, that changes the world--nothing will be the same now--and I bet this isn't even generally accepted among Popperians to boot.

???

Hell, that means you're better than they are, dude.

What? You mean I'm even not important enough for you to come up with your own insults? All you do is throw what's left of GHs's dishwater?

My vast, all-consuming ego may never recover. You sure know how to hurt a guy...;-)

Edited August 6, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Brant Gaede]

Oh my God!

You mean that Popper really did have a lifework's failure on verisimilitude and crapped out on demarcation criterion, and you not only know that for a fact, but you have the goods on Miller and Bartley? I mean, that changes the world--nothing will be the same now--and I bet this isn't even generally accepted among Popperians to boot.

???

Hell, that means you're better than they are, dude.

What? You mean I'm even not important enough for you to come up with your own insults? All you do is throw what's left of GHs's dishwater?

My vast, all-consuming ego may never recover. You sure know how to hurt a guy...;-)

I'll say this for you, Daniel, you don't know how to take bait.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

I'll say this for you, Daniel, you don't know how to take bait.

I guess that's how you get to be an old fish...

[Xray]

Merlin,

You completely missed my point. I was speaking of countable nouns, and it is only with these that her definition of “concept” works. What she calls concept here is the category referred to by an audiovisual symbol.

It's no wonder, given your epistemological chaos.

You completely missed my point. That tables are countable is not what makes each table an instance of the concept TABLE per Rand. It is their measurements, and measurements are of attributes. Is length -- Rand's primary example -- a "countable noun"? Your introducing "countable nouns" seems to be another instance of your epistemological chaos.

I was speaking of her definition of concepts only being applicable to countable conretes like e. g. table.

"A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted." (ITOE, p. 13)

It already fails when you try to apply it to uncountables (like e. g. 'mucus'), and to anyone who has read your post # 360 here, it becomes clear that you do see the problematic of Rand's "teleological abracadabra" (MSK) as she is trying to transfer her "measurement" stuff to abstract terms; she is actually trying to transfer it to every term out there (except proper nouns).

As for Rand's "primary example" the concept "length", surely you will remember the recent discussion where you yourself conceded in the end:

I think it's fair to judge by Ayn Rand's writing she didn't know a lot about the cognitive development of children.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=13&t=6591&qpid=103526

This addresses a key problem: Rand's approach to fields she was no expert in. She made a lof of usubstaniated assertions (for example that a child having yet know knowledge of words can grasp a concept like "length").

That does not invalidate what she said about adult-level thought.

It is mostly the same mess, Merlin.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Xray

[Ellen Stuttle]

Irrespective of what I want or don't want to do, are you missing that *you* were the one who gave that definition?

Actually I thought you introduced the issue. Here's what you wrote, with my emphasis.

Ellen:

No. The definition you gave there presumes an answer to an hypothesis, an answer which at the current time seems to be false.

Daniel, I introduced the issue, but you then adopted the false definition. Substitute "adopted" for "gave" in the first quote from me above. I stated it as a definition which had been used (by Newton), but then you "gave" it in the sense of adopting it. Please trace back carefully through the sequence of posts between you and me.

In Rand's view of definitions, of course definitions are hypotheses -- they're always-revisable-with-further-knowledge attempts to identify the most accurate distinguishing characteristic(s) of a category -- and of course they can be outright falsified as incorrect classifications as well as being superseded by further knowledge.

I'm at a loss trying to connect things you're asking with any belief that you ever read ITOE.

Ellen

[Xray]

I think she goofed in indicating that her definitions of "selfishness" and "sacrifice" are identifying *the* real concepts instead of identifying different concepts than most people mean by those words.

Correct. Linguistically speaking, Rand made the mistake of confusing the personal connotations she had with those terms with their denotation.

But of course there are results of testable hypotheses included in her idea of how one establishes "essential" characteristics.

Can you give one or more examples of results of "testable hypotheses included in her idea of how one establishes "essential" characteristics"?

I am defending a key point in Rand's views on definitions against what I think is your inaccurate reading of her. You've time and again laughed uproariously over her statement that our knowledge rests on the truth and falsity of our definitions. Yet she was right in respect to getting our concepts properly formed and properly situated in a hierarchy of concepts, which is what she was talking about, not, contra your interpretation, correct meanings *of words*. Having our concepts properly formed and arranged in relation to one another is an issue of getting our understanding of the relationships of reality correct. And, yes, our knowledge does depend on doing the job well.

The job is accomplished effortlessly even by children. For it is about simple categorizing and subcategorizing. Only mentally impaired persons will have difficulties in grasping the categories of their native language in the course of their cognitive development.

Also, Rand's over-emphasis on definitions disregards that people don't communicate via definitions. Definitions come into play on a meta-level.

As for "having our concepts properly formed", please read page 11 of ITOE. Do you believe that a child having no knowledge of words can grasp the concept length?

Moree about this in post # 51 here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6591&st=40

The problem with Rand is that she got so many basic things wrong.

In ITOE, on page 16, she states:

"Concepts of materials are formed by observing the differences in the constituent materials of entities. Materials exist only in the form of specific entities, such as nugget of gold, a plank of wood, a drop or an ocean of water." (Rand)

Wrong. Just think of e. g. "mucus".

Or read the part in ITOE about conjunctions where she accuses "Linguistic Analysis" of 'victimizing':

P. 38:

"If one says, I work every day, but not on Sunday, the "but" indicates an exception.

...

(These examples are for the benefit of those victims of modern philosophy who are taught by Linguistic Analysis that there is no way to derive conjunctions from experience, i. e. from the facts of reality.)" (Rand)

As nearly always, Rand provides no source to serve as evidence that her statements are based on facts of reality.

I can't imagine any linguist having stated this, and believe Rand may have misinterpreted the linguistic premise about the choice of the audiovisual symbol itself not being derived from reality because the chosen label is arbitrary ((De Saussure called it "L' arbitraire du signe". "Arbitrary" here does not mean there is no convention in the linguistic code to use this label).

Regarding the annex to ITOE containing the Q & A sessions:

I'm convinced that the sessions would have taken quite a different turn if Rand frequently had been asked a simple: "Source please, Miss Rand!" But this was not going to happen because the questioners' attitude was that of deferential disciples. Some of them invested considerable mental energy in trying to make sense of what she wrote, but exposing some of the premises themselves as false was out of the question in that setting.

So it was mostly an "Ask the Guru" thing, with AR having the last word. Rand locuta, causa finita, so to speak.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Linguistically speaking, Rand made the mistake of confusing the personal connotations she had with those terms with their denotation.

The pot calls the kettle black.

The problem with Rand is that she got so many basic things wrong.

In ITOE, on page 16, she states:

"Concepts of materials are formed by observing the differences in the constituent materials of entities. Materials exist only in the form of specific entities, such as nugget of gold, a plank of wood, a drop or an ocean of water." (Rand)

Wrong. Just think of e. g. "mucus".

If mucus is not a material, then what is it? Did you fail to notice that she included a drop of water as material? How does a drop of water fit, but not mucus, which has water as a major component?

material, adj. - of matter; of substance; relating to or consisting of what occupies space; physical (source)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What? You mean I'm even not important enough for you to come up with your own insults? All you do is throw what's left of GHs's dishwater?

My vast, all-consuming ego may never recover. You sure know how to hurt a guy...;-)

Daniel,

Oh man, there you go again.

I guess that showed me.

I have no way of competing with such magnificence of perception.

What can a simple dude do

When he's so outclassed by you?

Faith and wit are an unstoppable combination.

Michael