Logical Leap


Mike Renzulli

Recommended Posts

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.

The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.

Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism?

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.

The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.

Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism?

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.

The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.

Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.

Ghs

I agree with George. The book is interesting and well written. He presents the methods of similarity and difference well. His histories seem accurate enough to me. While McCaskey's objections seem plausible (I can't judge, not having the detailed background or sources available) they are hardly fatal to Harriman and also hardly out of bounds per Peikoff. I agree that the beginning is shaky. Harriman basically declares in one sentence that "generalization" parallels concept formation and declares the problem solved. He seems to me to have presented the problem weakly and to have provided a facile solution. But I don't happen to think the problem is all that problematic anyway, since all "refutations" of induction depend upon premises that have at some point been induced. (I myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case.) The book is not a must read, but if you have any interest at all I recommend it if just for the stimulation. I gave it 4/5 on amazon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I saw your review, Ted. Thanks very much! This book will be put on my short list of ones to buy and read.

Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism?

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.

The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.

Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.

Ghs

I agree with George. The book is interesting and well written. He presents the methods of similarity and difference well. His histories seem accurate enough to me. While McCaskey's objections seem plausible (I can't judge, not having the detailed background or sources available) they are hardly fatal to Harriman and also hardly out of bounds per Peikoff. I agree that the beginning is shaky. Harriman basically declares in one sentence that "generalization" parallels concept formation and declares the problem solved. He seems to me to have presented the problem weakly and to have provided a facile solution. But I don't happen to think the problem is all that problematic anyway, since all "refutations" of induction depend upon premises that have at some point been induced. (I myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case.) The book is not a must read, but if you have any interest at all I recommend it if just for the stimulation. I gave it 4/5 on amazon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I saw your review, Ted. Thanks very much! This book will be put on my short list of ones to buy and read.

Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism?

I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.

From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?

Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.

The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.

Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.

Ghs

I myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case.

How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?

Concepts are constructed from perceptions. The construction of concepts is not a form of inference. It is the integration of perceptions.

Enumerative Induction (many white swans ---> all swans are white) as a rule of inference is invalid. As a constructor for general propositions, absolutely indispensable. It is the way we get from particular facts to general propositions and laws. The catch is that the result of induction need not be true even if the particulars from which the generalization arises are true.

Here is where induction fits: in the discovery phase of science. Where it does not guarantee correctness, is in the justification phase of science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?

Concepts are constructed from perceptions. The construction of concepts is not a form of inference. It is the integration of perceptions.

Enumerative Induction (many white swans ---> all swans are white) as a rule of inference is invalid. As a constructor for general propositions, absolutely indispensable. It is the way we get from particular facts to general propositions and laws. The catch is that the result of induction need not be true even if the particulars from which the generalization arises are true.

Here is where induction fits: in the discovery phase of science. Where it does not guarantee correctness, is in the justification phase of science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, denying the validity of just enumerative induction, rather than induction in general is a whole lot more reasonable. Not that any sane person or any scientist in the last three millenia has ever used the method. But yes, we can all agree it is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?

Concepts are constructed from perceptions. The construction of concepts is not a form of inference. It is the integration of perceptions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, denying the validity of just enumerative induction, rather than induction in general is a whole lot more reasonable. Not that any sane person or any scientist in the last three millenia has ever used the method. But yes, we can all agree it is invalid.

According to AR:

The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction.

The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 28.

Is her definition of induction different from yours?

In what way is inference bypassed in the construction of concepts from perceptions?

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