primemover

Something Michael said that's worth repeating....

"In the classic example: "I have observed several white swans, therefore all swans are white," is a misuse of induction. The correct use is: "I have observed several white swans, therefore white swans exist as a category of reality."

I like Francois Tremblay's example..something like...

Nutrition IS necessary for survival.

If man chooses to survive, he OUGHT to obtain nutrition.

A moral ought from a fact.

next?

My problem is with trying to derive the start of the universe from math, not understanding it as it exists. And I have a problem with using only bottom-up knowledge, i.e., deriving entities from subparticles (emergence) as the only explanation.

Is there any real reason so far believing that the universe had a start other than an epistemological conceit?

Michael

Do you understand what Bob said about background radiation? I don't understand what you are replying to. So the universe had a start. The only thing I know of that probably didn't have a start is existence itself, because non-existence only exists as a concept juxtaposed to the concept of existence. Reality has substance. Non-existence has zip. Something existed before the Big Bang or it was something out of nothing, a contradiction.

So, where in all this is math leading the reality horse? And how much more top-down can you get than with reality exists, A is A? Everything, knowledge-wise, starts with observation. After induction, deduction, but I see the temptation to let the latter run off on its own resulting in all kinds of nonsense.

--Brant

This is my position as well. Causality assumes existence and is only possible within existence. To discuss the how is to enter into science and out of philosophy.

I don't see a problem with multiple universes or string theory in regard to Objectivism. The totality of existence is the totality of existence, period. If this universe we live in is a cause from something yet to be discovered then so be it. One things is for sure, it wasn't a conscious cause.

Primemover,

But I am curious to ask now: have you ever read Hume or other skeptic's works? Do you have any ideas what would make this philosophical orientation compelling to certain intellectuals?

-Victor

Yes, Hume and Descartes mainly.

What draws people to it? Perhaps because it is emotionally satisfying in a way that a theist is emotional satisfied by thinking a magic man in the sky is watching them.

Worthy of quotation from Victor.

Take note that skepticism as a philosophy is not about 'doubt' per se or about “reasonable doubt” on dubious propositions—such as “God exists”—but rather: it is about dogmatic doubt. The honest man of science says: “I think it is such-and-such, but I am not sure.” The man of intellectual honesty says: “I don’t know how it is, but I hope to find out.” The philosophical skeptic—thinking himself so superior—says: “Nobody knows, and nobody can ever know.” (And this is considered to be "wisdom").

Prime:

>The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

If you assert it, it must be true!

no..go take a reading comprehension class then go read Hume and see what he says about it. Hume does not say that you can't derive ethical premises from facts.

Ok so you agree that there is a method for determining what constitutes knowledge and what doesn't?

The scientific method works fine.

And why do you think that is? Why isn't it that majority consensus or authority validates truths? The very foundation for the scientific methods rest on the very idea that A is A and that existence has primacy over consciousness.

First, as far as I know this is not Rand's formulation, but a concoction by Peikoff. His idea is that if you arrive at a conclusion by logical reasoning using all the information that is available at that moment, you can be "certain" of that conclusion, it is the "truth". Now even Peikoff knows that it is possible that later more information becomes available that falsifies this "truth",

No that is not what Peikoff says. He says that if you form your concepts properly, new information adds to the previous information.

so while he calls it the truth or a certainty, he uses the qualifier "contextual". So in his view the notions that for example the influence of gravity is instantaneous and that time is absolute are "contextual truths", which is just a dirty euphemism for "proven false" and "not certain", but these terms sound so unobjectivistic.

No, a new variable for time ( how fast your are moving through time) is what was discovered. Newtons work was very important for expanding on this knowledge.

When I use the term "context" it refers to the object of the certainty statement; where we cannot be 100% certain is in general positive statements about the physical world, in other words, in the results, the laws of the sciences. There are other contexts where this is not relevant, as in logical or mathematical reasoning or in certain meta-statements. Further there is no point in doubting the negation of obviously absurd statements, like the idea that I am a teapot. So merely jumping at every appearance of the word "certain" is not very constructive neither original, as you have to consider the context in which it is used. That also applies to the context of Peikoff's statements about "contextual certainty" (2 different meanings of "context" here!), which is just a weasel term for "less than 100% certainty". In fact Peikoff admits that 100% certainty about the physical world is not possible, but he hides it behind a terminological smoke screen. Our objection is against the weaseliness and the confusing power of the term.

Anyway, I hope my explanation of the difference is clear now to you.

I could have swore he was asking you for your definition of "knowledge".

>You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

An explanation is not the same as a valid deduction.

Rather the Objectivist explanation is correct or not is another topic. The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

The situation is, as we discussed at length here recently, as decisions cannot be logically derived from facts (without smuggling in hidden assumptions), decisions, including ethical ones, always have a partly subjective element.

You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

Your definition of knowledge seems to be whatever one thinks, period.

Not whatever one thinks. Some propositions will have more evidence for them or be more likely than other ones and it is a good idea to realize the difference.

Ok so you agree that there is a method for determining what constitutes knowledge and what doesn't?

We don't need 100% certainty to know something.

When I am not certain about something I am careful not to say I know such is the case and then I may state what I think a good probability of what the case might be . But I never claim that I know something and simultaneously not sure about it.

That absolute knowledge about the world is not possible does not imply that no knowledge is possible.

Again with this wishy washy definition of knowledge to be whatever one thinks.

A sufficiently high probability is in practice good enough. Knowledge is that what makes our living possible, even if it is not 100% certain. Your error is to equate knowledge with 100% certainty, implying that everything you "know" is 100% certain and that you never err. Yeah, sure.

No , in that if I find out I was wrong about X, then I am honest and say "well damn I guess I didn't know about how X functions after all." I wouldn't still claim to know how X functions. Bu then again, I would have said that I was under the impression that X functioned that way.

Please forgive the lapse but I can't resist. Are you absolutely 100% certain about what you are proposing? You seem emotionally committed to it.

You seem to see a bit too often all kinds of emotions in other people, do you think it would invalidate their arguments, while you have no emotional commitments at all?

In this case my statement is just the advice to use a sensible definition of "knowledge". You shouldn't take words like "certain" out of their context, which is the common error in this kind of (hardly original) questions.

Your definition of knowledge seems to be whatever one thinks, period.

Sure, but only if you insist on "know" meaning omniscient certainty! Because obviously only ominscience, where all possible future circumstances and possibilities are known, can never be overturned.

Again with your strawmen. Has any Objectivist claimed to know the future?

I don't agree with this, clearly. I don't think you need to have ominscient certainty of all future possibilities to say you "know" something.

Again with your future business!

However, what you're saying above is, despite your protestations to the contrary, that you do. Knowledge that can never be overturned the only type of knowledge that you say qualifies to be called such! In your supposed criticism of skepticism, I think you might be projecting, as they say.

are you sure?

It's not just you, BTW. Ayn Rand seems to have the same problem - or at least Fred Seddon seems to think so. Towards the end of his lengthy essay here, he argues the following:

"In defense of Nyquist, I do think that Rand is really a radical here. Her notion of certainty is one that challenges the usual definition of knowledge as “justified true belief,” a notion that probably goes back to Plato.

Yea a great indicator of the truth of something is how old it is or by how many people think it is true.:thumbsup:

When someone says we can't be sure of anything what they are saying is that ultimately we can know nothing.

IOW's because we are not omniscient we can't know anything.

Whoever said that we can't know anything?

Your position is that what we "know" as true can be overturned at any moment. If something you "knew" as true is latter false then all along you did not really know it. Thus we can't know anything.

>is it a strawman? I'm simply carrying over his reasoning to another area. It's his reasoning. I just changed the subject matter.

>Now of coarse he doesn't say that about omnipotence but if he were to be consistent he would.

But your example doesn't actually follow unless you use "knowledge" in a ridiculously limited sense.

For example, just because I know my bus timetable, doesn't mean I am certain that the bus will always be there!

You seem to think that if knowledge isn't certain, it doesn't exist, or is entirely useless! This is obviously a fallacy.

Actually, you can have knowledge that is approximately correct, and generally reliable - just like my bus timetable. And you can strive to improve it, or make it better (I might go and get a copy of the latest bus timetable, which takes into account a few new schedule changes).

"Absolute certainty" is simply unnecessary, even if we could get it. Which we can't - unless we resort to mere word-play, and invent a self-contradictory oxymoron like "contextual absolute".

Strawman.

I wouldn't pretend to know the future and say that the bus will arrive at x time. I would say that I know for certain what time THEY SAY the bus will arrive. So you admit that you know for certain when they say the bus will arrive?

"But your example doesn't actually follow unless you use "knowledge" in a ridiculously limited sense."

Knowledge means to know something about reality. You position seems to be that anything we know can be overturned at any moment therefore how can you assert that we know anything?

Primemover:

>because we are not omnipotent, we can never do anything.

Once again: why should we listen to you lecture on sound reasoning when you come out with hilarious illogic like this, Prime?

Or, if this is meant to be an opponent's argument, can you give us an actual example of someone using this? I've never heard anyone say this. It sounds like a strawman of your own invention to me.

If you have no example of anyone who ever actually claimed this, what is the point of offering it for debate?

is it a strawman? I'm simply carrying over his reasoning to another area. It's his reasoning. I just changed the subject matter.

Now of coarse he doesn't say that about omnipotence but if he were to be consistent he would.

primemover:

>In other words, because we are not omniscient, we can never be certain. Or in contrast, because we are not omnipotent, we can never do anything.

And primemover thinks skeptics are bad at reasoning! Hilarious!

When someone says we can't be sure of anything what they are saying is that ultimately we can know nothing.

IOW's because we are not omniscient we can't know anything.

We are condemned for having senses and rational faculties that each has a specific identity.

Are you with me so far?

No you cannot be certain of their consequence, as you never can be certain that these are the only variables influencing the outcome. In mathematics you can isolate that what you want to study, but if you isolate certain parts in real life you do that at your own peril. Mathematics is certain, reality is not.

I'm not talking about isolating anything. If I'm driving and I see a river I am certain that I am seeing a river.

What would the conversation with you and your wife sound like as you crossed the mississippi river.

Wife:Oh wow honey look it's the Mississippi river.

you: Well it may be the Mississippi river but you can never be sure about that you know.

Do you talk like that? Whos philosophy you more closely emulate in your day to day life?

The first part is correct with respect to reality, we can never be certain. The second part is nonsense, you don't have to be omnipotent to do something.

And I don't have to be omniscient to know something.

This is not a good argument. In mathematics we know that there are no unknown variables, as we define the number of variables.

I was aware of this difference when I formulated the parallel and it completely misses the point.

You admit that we can be certain that 1+1=2 yet you cannot admit that we can be certain that when two (lets keep it simple for discussions sake and say two) variables interact within reality we can be certain of their consequence. Rather or not there are unknown variables in either case misses the fundamental point. In one case you are allowing for contextual certainty and in another you are not.

When we describe the real world we use a model with a certain finite number of variables, but we can never be sure that this number of variables is sufficient for a correct description.

In other words, because we are not omniscient, we can never be certain. Or in contrast, because we are not omnipotent, we can never do anything.

Let me address the argument that because not everyone agrees on what ethics is it is subjective, (or sometimes worded), someone can chose or reject certain ethical systems in favor of another therefore ethical values are subjective.

I will do this by drawing a parallel.

Is the scientific method subjective? In other words, can the scientific method be whatever I want it to be? What if we take a poll and see what the majority thinks the scientific method is , is that what it is going to be? Of coarse not, the scientific method is not subjective. It is not subject to majority vote , emotional whim or authority. This is because existence has primacy over consciousness. One can embark on a quest for knowledge and freely chose not to employ the scientific method but we would not say that because someone can chose this that the scientific method is subjective. We can have an entire population on this planet and yet many argue that the principles of the scientific method are not correct . Some say that ESP or praying is a method of gaining knowledge. Using the reasoning from moral subjectivist and applying it to the scientific method, the scientific method must be subjective. It must be whatever we want it to be because no one agrees.

We can freely chose to embark on a quest for knowledge while not employing the principles of the scientific method, but WE ARE NOT FREE of the consequences reality will deal us when we employ methods other than the principles it embodies. Likewise , we are free to accept any code of ethics that comes along or that was passed down by society or by religion but we are not free to avoid the consequences reality will deal to us from choosing such systems.

The barometer for objectivity is NOT what one group, person or authority THINKS is correct. The barometer of objectivity is reality. Reality sets the terms no matter what man THINKS the case is.

I came up with a parallel of the following skeptic argument and I think it brings to light in a greater contrast the lunacy of such "reasoning".

The argument is that since we cannot know of variables that may affect a situation we cannot be certain of the conclusion we have based on the variables we do know of.

The lunacy of this type of reasoning is exposed in greater contrast when you apply it to mathematics.

We know that 1+1=2. If a skeptic is to be consistent ( I know getting a skeptic to be consistent is far fetched but let's all just pretend for a moment.)..... if the skeptic is to be consistent, he must answer that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 because there may in fact be an unknown variable in the math problem that he doesn't know about. Such as 1x + 1 = 3. A rational person realizes that we now are no longer be dealing with 1+ 1 = 2 while the skeptic being unable to conceptualize higher than a lobotimized cock roach considers this proof that we can't be certain of anything.

I'm not sure I follow you. Ethics is in regard only to rational entities that have the ability to chose between things. But I will put that book on my "to read" list", thanks.

It's true that ethics is only in regard to beings with volition. But Rand's definition of life is much broader than that, it's intended to apply to all living entities not just us.

Perhaps we could be of more help if you specified what your purpose is here. Are you trying to understand why one's life should be the standard in ethics? To prove that that's the case?

Shayne

Yes..like I said above, I am trying to solidify this in my mind. It's my own mental way of "chewing" ( as(Rand would say) ideas. I like the deductive format of reasoning because it helps me see things in a systematic way in my mind. Though I do recognise that induction is how we know of the world and how we can even have the premises we use in deduction to begin with.

Well yes I agree that there is voluntary and involuntarily action. I had considered that when thinking about point 2. However since we are on the topic of ethics I thought it would be assumed I was speaking about voluntary action only since ethics is about choices and values.

Since you're using Rand's definition I assumed you intended to address the same topic. Her definition is intended to apply to all life, not just conscious life. Again, Binswanger analyzes her definition intensely in his book.

Shayne

I'm not sure I follow you. Ethics is in regard only to rational entities that have the ability to chose between things. But I will put that book on my "to read" list", thanks.