Rodney

The following exchange was omitted, so here it is: What I mean is, was Feynman's work here the application of known math, or the creation of new mathematical ideas? In other words, has it become part of the tool kit of pure mathematicians as well? (I truly do not know.)

OK, thanks, Mr. Baggerds. ;)

Now why didn't I think of that? Thanks!

Now this is a surprise! As far as I know, there was no break with me--and for me to be listed with such names is a shock indeed. My impression is that, on O-sites, for all and sundry, I am such small fry as to be under the radar.

What I mean is, was Feynman's work here the application of known math, or the creation of new mathematical ideas? In other words, has it become part of the tool kit of pure mathematicians as well? (I truly do not know.) (Sorry for this tangent, all!)

Not so. Feynman invented integration over histories. This is a novel variation of the Least Action Principle Ba'al Chatzaf Isn't that more of a physics achievement?

If you mean he did not create new mathematical ideas, you are correct. So by AR's definition, he was not a math genius. Touché. So Feynman is a relevant example. Sorry, JD! Still, anyone with Feynman's math ability is a genius in my estimation, in the sense of intellectual power.

I agree with all those points, JD. My concept of genius is basically AR's, which I assume everyone here knows. My own point was only that Feynman is not a good example of a non-mathematical genius.

I'm on your side in this, John, but you ought to be aware that Feynman was also a math genius--he could do cube roots of large numbers in his head faster than a highly trained abacus master. Ayn was a genius as a writer and thinker, as BB said, but not in math--though a teacher had once advised her to become a mathematician, she was so good at it.

CNA, despite all that's occurred, you might want to watch out for those Little Arrows "Here they come, pouring out of the blue ..."

That's very easy. I think the game is to do it with only two words. http://www.googlewhack.com/

That is interesting, because the one line I could not recall in later years was that one--I eventually half-convinced myself that it was "Your father had the black pajama blues." Guy Marks was apparently a marvelous all-round entertainer. He projected utter conviction in what he was doing, whereas in other performers one often senses that they are worried the material will not go over, to the extent of commenting or apologizing when it does not. Here are two other clips that can be found of his performances: This one shows him in later years performing his big hit. In this one we see a few of his masterful impressions--in which he even seems to look like the person he is imitating. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6aL4Nn0j8k

The great actor/comedian/impressionist/singer Guy Marks is here parodying radio broadcasts of his day. (I'm not sure if I understood that back then. Likely not.) One factor in the humor, to me, is the lameness of this would-be lover's compliments to his lady. And the apparent result of his underwhelming wooing!

Long ago, as a child, I was watching The Ed Sullivan Show, and a performer came on and sang a song. It was addressed to a woman. From the first two lines, I knew I would want to remember it, and so I did--the melody and lyric have remained in my mind ever since. I only heard the song once, and never thought of it again. Until the Internet. Then I began to realize that I could research all manner of trivia concerning my early memories, and even experience once again sights and sounds from the past. Eventually, I thought again of that unforgettable song of long ago. So I Googled what I could remember of it--which was most of the lyric, and the name of the performer--and marvelously I relived the moment that had so affected me. So now it I offer it to my fellow posters here, in the link that follows. I dedicate this song to all of womankind, since it well expresses my feelings and experiences in relation to them. It is said, "Time flies like an arrow," but hopefully it will prove equally true that not only fruit flies, but also dragonflies and gadflies, like a banana.

That anecdote in which you quote Rand's quip upon bringing out the completed MS of Atlas--"One word led to another"--was new to me, and I found it delightful!

A wonderful and moving speech.

I was wondering the same thing.

Bravo! I was especially impressed with the flute and harp writing. Sounds very assured and professional.

Hi!

As promised, I’ll present my thoughts on Ayn Rand’s definition of logic, and why she chose it, as against the conventional definition offered by the other posters. And I’ll restrict myself to that, due to time constraints (currently I am editing four university textbooks). (Maybe one day, when I am retired, as many denizens of Objectivist boards seem to be, I will be able to fully participate. I apologize if anyone has already made these points in this long thread or elsewhere.) To repeat, the conventional definition is very proper and correct: logic is the study of the principles of valid inference (or, maybe more precisely, deduction), quite apart from the truth or falsity of premises and conclusions. When I first heard Ayn Rand’s definition, I myself was puzzled about why she did not define logic as “The art of noncontradictory statement.” (Also, later I wondered why she used the word art rather than science or study, but more on that presently.) I concluded—as I said earlier here—that she wished to emphasize the purpose and use of logic. That is, she saw no point in using reason apart from the goal of obtaining knowledge. I think that is basically what MSK was saying, though his casual, folksy style at times makes it hard to grasp his point. (On the other hand, to give the Daniel his due, Barnes is usually crystal-clear, as are some of the others.) However, thinking about it some more, I see other factors in Rand’s definition. If one’s conclusions are to be true, all of one’s premises have to be also—at least towards the end of the reasoning chain. But there are many, many alternative paths to this goal, and they necessarily involve dealing with false premises, using reductio ad absurdum, dead ends, etc. That is why we need the science or study of logic as the term is popularly and professionally understood. This field is a universe unto itself, and it does not have to take cognizance of any outside truth in the premises it juggles. False and arbitrary premises and false conclusions do not matter, because the discipline assumes we are starting from a stance of ignorance and confusion; it cannot be in the position of dictating in advance what we must think about the subject matter to which we want to apply it. If one believed that proper definitions are to be arrived at by consulting dictionaries and encyclopedias (and some here do believe it), that would be all there is to say on the topic. However, as Ayn Rand maintained, definitions must be revised and new concepts must be formed as our knowledge increases. (According to my own thinking, these two processes may actually be combined in what I would call development of a concept. I have more to say on this in the Lulu.com essay “Understanding Imaginaries Through Hidden Numbers.”) Thus, in her definition of logic, Ayn Rand formed a wider, more fundamental concept of it, which related to the conventional one without contradicting it. The higher complexities of the science of logic in the conventional sense are not normally needed in human life or even in science. Usually the logical chains are short and immediately appreciable. We don’t see most scientists, in their investigations, painstakingly listing the premises they have established or wish to assess, then applying logical formulas or symbols to get their results or judge them (mathematics might be one of the exceptions to this). They simply observe reality and use reason. What scientists need, and what daily human life needs, is a manner of thought whereby observations of reality can coalesce into a sense of seeing, so that the truth “pops into view.” What they need is a process directly analogous to what happens when we look at our hand in front of us: a gathering of visual information and integration of it into a conscious state whereby we automatically know the hand exists—as opposed to having an open-to-disproof theory that it is there. According to Ayn Rand, man is aware of reality, and the essential nature of awareness is not successive falsification and alteration, but seeing. Now, in many respects, but not all, science traffics in conjectures, hypotheses, theories, but at the root it depends on observation, which is the use of the faculty of sight. And in daily human life, awareness in this sense heavily predominates, the underlying, simple logic having largely been made automatic. For example, if you know your brother is in his two-room apartment, and do not see him in the first room, you do not reason, “He must therefore be in the second”; you instantly know it. It is not a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory; it is awareness. (The abstract human possibility of error has no effect on this certainty. And in truth, myriad other facts in your experience of the situation, held together by logic, are contributing to your ruling-out of this possibility in the situation before you. Moreover, this possibility cannot extend to all of human knowledge. In this, as in a few other issues, Ayn Rand said all that will ever need to be said: that it logically implies man is not conscious. Therefore, to borrow an expression my professor of Logic used at the start of his course, “It is bound to be false.”) For these reasons, Ayn Rand did not want to describe logic as “the study of the principles of valid inference,” even though as a detailed, scientific discipline, that is what the term means. That definition puts the focus on the possibility of error in logical chains, which is a special danger with long chains and deserves to be studied independently. (She approved Leonard Peikoff’s taped lecture courses on such logic, which incidentally I have listened to.) Rather, she wanted to characterize logic at its interface with reality and with human life. This is why she used the word “identification” rather than “statement.” The activity of being logical involves as its end result the construction of a web of identifications—ones that might be translated into statements that are true—a web that constitutes our sense that we are actually seeing the world instead of inquiring into it. And this is also why she used the word “art” rather than “science”—she was directing her attention to the activity of being logical as a fundamental human mode of being aware. Consider the alternative terms she might have used. “Practice” and “habit” have the wrong connotations. “Science” takes us back to the formal, detailed, systematic sense. Keep in mind also that she was writing a novel, and wanted to use vivid, colorful language. As a word that satisfies these needs, while also conveying a sense that using logic can be a sophisticated process, even when all the chains are short and clear, “art” does the job.

I think you are misunderstanding the thrust of the passage. The author is defending, not too effectively, good grammar and usage, and appropriate level of formality.

Oh. Anyway, I've got my thoughts together and will try to find time to write them out tomorrrow. EDIT: Sorry about the delay. Soon I hope.

Michael, The Peikoff example doesn't carry much weight with me (merely because it seems irrelevant to this). But the first one does; let me mull it over.

I'm with Daniel and Ellen on this one, Michael. I think AR would be too--for her it was just a matter of emphasis. She wanted to focus on the ultimate proper purpose of logic: to find out the truth. But if pressed as above, she would agree that logic has to do with self-consistency as such. Someone alert me to any possible evidence that I am wrong about Rand's view.