Stillbirth of reason: Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Moreover...

Be glad you didn't know me back then.

Imagine me doing that stuff and Randroid to boot.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

This is precisely the point of attack of Bacon's New Method' on Aristotle. Science needs only a workable method to produce truth, via induction. OTH, philosophy produces false science because it relies upon deduction from principles.

The non-deductive blade in the sheave of science is abduction (inferring the likely cause), not Baconian induction (all swans are white etc). Without deduction physical science could never produce universally quantified hypothesis and theories, hence could not posit general laws.

Besides which without deduction, mathematical methods could not be deployed in the physical sciences.

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Philosophy suffers from the A Priori disease.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Moreover...

Be glad you didn't know me back then.

Imagine me doing that stuff and Randroid to boot.

Michael

I would never have noticed. I don't speak Portuquez.

Eva's a fire hose and Tony's not giving her enough slack. What he's complaining about can't last unless it finds a home in academia, which it might, but not here. Very transitory. If you take a slice of what she's saying right now she's kinda like no-intellectual-hope Greg, but she's moving and he ain't or she has intellectual hope.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Bob,

Heh.

Where would all your arguments be without deduction, induction and abduction?

They come from philosophy, dude.

Epistemology.

Are these thinking methods themselves, the rules of the game, "A Priori diseases"?

Michael

[eva matthews]

This is precisely the point of attack of Bacon's New Method' on Aristotle. Science needs only a workable method to produce truth, via induction. OTH, philosophy produces false science because it relies upon deduction from principles.

The non-deductive blade in the sheave of science is abduction (inferring the likely cause), not Baconian induction (all swans are white etc). Without deduction physical science could never produce universally quantified hypothesis and theories, hence could not posit general laws.

Besides which without deduction, mathematical methods could not be deployed in the physical sciences.

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Philosophy suffers from the A Priori disease.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Abduction was made possible by the advent of probability/statistics, around 1840. Prior--back to the time of Bacon-- it was safe to argue that swans are generally white, and induction is mostly reliable.

Does deduction lead to hypotheses-building? Of course. Bacon's 'New Method' said that science is a means of testing hypotheses, and, moreover, that the number of deductions that might be tested as hypotheses is infinite.

The Greeks did not invent math. Rather they attempted to axiomitize it into a general deductive system--much to the displeasue of Euclid, I might add. Of course, the procedure of math is deductive; who ever aid that we need to choose it against induction? Again, the contribution of bacon was to describe deductions limits viv a viv a new method, hence the title.

More on math: Feynman saw Physics as employing a Babylonian method in which the science picks and chooses from a range of mutually-contradictory alternatives. OTH, a rational-deductyive 'Greek' scheme would have all potential methods subscribed under a singular system.

Eva

[eva matthews]

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Bob,

Heh.

Where would all your arguments be without deduction, induction and abduction?

They come from philosophy, dude.

Epistemology.

Are these thinking methods themselves, the rules of the game, "A Priori diseases"?

Michael

The issue, Michael, is whether or not terms such as these derive independently from philosophy as an origin, or rather, is philosophy only a retrospective reflection of what's been done?

In other words, we read Aristotle (as later edited) as having said that science just 'has' a metaphysics that's evinced in 'telos' or final cause. To this end, we cannot do science without said metaphysics.

Now regardless of whether this is the 'true' Aristotle or not (I vote 'no'!), it's what we live with in philo 101 prior to a more serious examination of his work. So said '101' has always insisted that Philo drives science because the statement makes philosophy feel important.

Now for a de-mystification of this view, from the inside, you might want to consult Rorty, Derrida, or Wittgenstein.

Suffice to say from the exterior that the point of reference is always Bacon's "New Method"; philosophy does its thing down at The Cheeta, we do ours here on the big stage...

Eva

[eva matthews]

So if this is what Rand is about, so much the worse for her. But mind you, i'm not pre-judging Rand as such, because i'd say the same thing about anyone else's philosophy that felt it was somehow entitled to direct science.

So basically, chalk this sad tendency up to ignorance of science as such--yours in particular.

I'll make no allowances for you that others may. Erudition, education and intelligence, and even flashes of charm, don't impress me much, without integrity. You are dishonest. Your empirical mindset isn't anything I have not seen, but such skepticism sickens me. I sense that whatever philosophy you are ruled by is fundamentally anti-consciousness, so, anti-life.

If you ever get your hands on power... And you will, by your nature, intellect and the zeitgeist of your time, you will. 'Scientism' is the nursery of tomorrow's intellectocrats.

This person writes as if i could give a fuck about his personal opinion of me. "Dishonest"? Only a moron would make that accusation without evidence. Ditto 'integrity'.

Skepticism, or doubt of truth-claims is what philosophy is all about. To be sickened by it means that the individual can't stand the heat--so get out of the kitchen.

The empiricists that he's met were likely scientists who have talked over his head. Reacting in frustration, he's become a 101 philosopher, unable to make the quantum leap to 202. Oopps...there I go again... with a metaphor taken directly from the confusing world of empirical science. Silly me.

EM

[Reidy]

Eva is in her endgame. Shall we get up a pool as to which forum she hits on next?

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Eva is in her endgame. Shall we get up a pool as to which forum she hits on next?

end quote

Nah. It is odd that the people she cusses out are on the “smarter” or “pro Rand” side. We on the pro Rand side, discuss Rand’s perceived faults, both personal and philosophic, but it is just between friends who know her philosophy is the glue that can hold various pro reason ideas and schools of thought together. We want her small “o” objectivism to be contextual and true to the latest in science. But then we come across “a basher” and we notice the difference between criticizing while improving, and bashing.

I am in no way convinced she is, who she says she is. I imagine her story of early precociousness brings back memories of oneself to our brighter OL contributors. But like “the dean” she may not be worth the reading, if she evokes negative feelings and is so low class as to “type” foul cuss words in retaliation. If someone bumped into you and you spilled your coffee, I might react with a single, Oh F, but there is quite a lag time between reading, reacting negatively, typing, and hitting the send button, with arrows meant to hurt. If she does that, in person, every other word out of her mouth might be motherf@#$%^.

[tmj]

This person writes as if i could give a fuck about his personal opinion of me. "Dishonest"? Only a moron would make that accusation without evidence. Ditto 'integrity'.

Cursing seems on the face to be an indication of comment preceded by forethought. But then I never even had psych 101, so I will just shut up. Btw I don't care what any poopy head thinks either, fair warning

[eva matthews]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Eva is in her endgame. Shall we get up a pool as to which forum she hits on next?

end quote

Nah. It is odd that the people she cusses out are on the “smarter” or “pro Rand” side. We on the pro Rand side, discuss Rand’s perceived faults, both personal and philosophic, but it is just between friends who know her philosophy is the glue that can hold various pro reason ideas and schools of thought together. We want her small “o” objectivism to be contextual and true to the latest in science. But then we come across “a basher” and we notice the difference between criticizing while improving, and bashing.

I am in no way convinced she is, who she says she is. I imagine her story of early precociousness brings back memories of oneself to our brighter OL contributors. But like “the dean” she may not be worth the reading, if she evokes negative feelings and is so low class as to “type” foul cuss words in retaliation. If someone bumped into you and you spilled your coffee, I might react with a single, Oh F, but there is quite a lag time between reading, reacting negatively, typing, and hitting the send button, with arrows meant to hurt. If she does that, in person, every other word out of her mouth might be motherf@#$%^.

i suppose the moral of the story is that one should never intentionally bump into tsomeone carrying hot coffee.

[eva matthews]

Eva is in her endgame. Shall we get up a pool as to which forum she hits on next?

End or not, it's my business--not accessible to someone who has never posted anything of content to begin with. On other words, as you're not in the 'game', how would you know?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The issue, Michael, is whether or not terms such as these derive independently from philosophy as an origin, or rather, is philosophy only a retrospective reflection of what's been done?

In other words, we read Aristotle (as later edited) as having said that science just 'has' a metaphysics that's evinced in 'telos' or final cause. To this end, we cannot do science without said metaphysics.

Now regardless of whether this is the 'true' Aristotle or not (I vote 'no'!), it's what we live with in philo 101 prior to a more serious examination of his work. So said '101' has always insisted that Philo drives science because the statement makes philosophy feel important.

Now for a de-mystification of this view, from the inside, you might want to consult Rorty, Derrida, or Wittgenstein.

Suffice to say from the exterior that the point of reference is always Bacon's "New Method"; philosophy does its thing down at The Cheeta, we do ours here on the big stage...

Eva,

Heh.

After cutting through the fat, this sounds like a priori meat to me.

But is it science?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On other words, as you're not in the 'game', how would you know?

Eva,

You'll learn over time (hopefully).

Try cognitive before normative. I see you often do the contrary, you judge something or someone without correct identification first.

But how can you evaluate something correctly without knowing what it is for real?

That's pure System 1 thinking--sometimes turning System 2 off on purpose.

Your identification of Pete Reidy is based on extremely limited contact and observation, and a bit of flare-up. Mine is based on years. He is an excellent thinker who has contributed a lot over the years--and he has a good heart. He's a good man who brings a ton of value to the table.

This applies to some others around here, too.

Michael

[Peter]

Bob wrote:

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

end quote

I wonder what experiments are available to “prove” a philosophy? Simply discussing a philosophy starting from axioms is a beginning but has anyone heard about logically proving a system? Rand had the idea that a philosophy should be of one interlinked piece, so could a computer program be devised to prove a philosophy?

Suppose a large group of philosophers agreed to basic axioms, then built a philosophy of science “program,” and sought a proof would the result be beneficial? I imagine there are computer programs to “prove” theorems just as there are devices to do calculations. I get a kick out of blackboards being used by scientists to help them think, as in “Good Will Hunting,” or “The Big Bang Theory,” but wouldn’t a computer be more helpful?

[Brant Gaede]

The "beneficial" proof would be beneficial to the philosophy, Peter, not science. Science has no "proof" while philosophy is full of them. If technology works that's the proof of the science behind the technology assuming that's the real science behind the technology that works.

--Brant

there are no experiments to prove a philosophy for there are no numbers (quantities) to be evaluated

if you think I know what I am talking about would you be interested in buying a bridge in NYC?--my deductions are strong(?), my knowledge is slight

[eva matthews]

On other words, as you're not in the 'game', how would you know?

Eva,

You'll learn over time (hopefully).

Try cognitive before normative. I see you often do the contrary, you judge something or someone without correct identification first.

But how can you evaluate something correctly without knowing what it is for real?

That's pure System 1 thinking--sometimes turning System 2 off on purpose.

Your identification of Pete Reidy is based on extremely limited contact and observation, and a bit of flare-up. Mine is based on years. He is an excellent thinker who has contributed a lot over the years--and he has a good heart. He's a good man who brings a ton of value to the table.

This applies to some others around here, too.

Michael

My identification of Reidy is based upon his sneering remark about my identity and 'endgame'. As he's made no other contribution to this thread, he's not in the game by definition.

re Kahneman, you've totally misunderstood his heuristic.

EM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

re Kahneman, you've totally misunderstood his heuristic.

Eva,

His or yours?

And please use the right terms. Systems 1 and 2 are not heuristics (that is if I remember what I studied). They are virtual-like divisions of convenience. But I think I'll look it up later to find his exact words,

Michael

[eva matthews]

re Kahneman, you've totally misunderstood his heuristic.

Eva,

His or yours?

And please use the right terms. Systems 1 and 2 are not heuristics (that is if I remember what I studied). They are virtual-like divisions of convenience. But I think I'll look it up later to find his exact words,

Michael

No, you didn't 'study', Kahneman, but rather read his popular book on his life's work, book, Thinking,, fast and slow.

The heuristic articles date from the seventies. and form what was later called 'System 0ne'.

What's of astounding importance is that these articles demonstrate that everyday thought isn't based upon reasoning things out. Rather, more of less 'first impressions'.

In any case, neither are 'virtual-like terms of convenience'. They're real because they give distinguishing experimental results.

EM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eva,

I just looked it up.

Goddamit.

You're faking.

Maybe I am mistaken about you.

If you think the effortful system and the automatic system are heuristics, you don't know what a heuristic is.

Once again you are embarrassing yourself.

I'll quote the passages in the next post.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some of the comments Kahneman made about System 1 and System 2--and they are right in the first chapter of the goddam book (Thinking Fast and Slow).

Part 1 is called "Two Systems" - This part contains Chapter 1.

Part 2 is called "Heuristics and Biases" - This deals with the mental shortcuts of System 1 (heuristics). The different heuristics are dealt with mostly in the chapters of this section.

And there are three other sections to the book that intermingle the heuristics and discuss them from different lenses. I don't recall if new heuristics were introduced in those sections because I was not counting heuristics when I first went through this book.

The following quotes are from Chapter 1:

The labels of System 1 and System 2 are widely used in psychology, but I go further than most in this book, which you can read as a psychodrama with two characters.

When we think of ourselves, we identify with System 2, the conscious, reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices, and decides what to think about and what to do. Although System 2 believes itself to be where the action is, the automatic System 1 is the hero of the book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit beliefs and deliberate choices of System 2. The automatic operations of System 1 generate surprisingly complex patterns of ideas, but only the slower System 2 can construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps. I also describe circumstances in which System 2 takes over, overruling the freewheeling impulses and associations of System 1.

. . .

System 1 and System 2 are so central to the story I tell in this book that I must make it absolutely clear that they are fictitious characters. Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in the standard sense of entities with interacting aspects or parts. And there is no one part of the brain that either of the systems would call home. You may well ask: What is the point of introducing fictitious characters with ugly names into a serious book? The answer is that the characters are useful because of some quirks of our minds, yours and mine. A sentence is understood more easily if it describes what an agent (System 2) does than if it describes what something is, what properties it has. In other words, “System 2” is a better subject for a sentence than “mental arithmetic.” The mind—especially System 1—appears to have a special aptitude for the construction and interpretation of stories about active agents, who have personalities, habits, and abilities.

. . .

Why call them System 1 and System 2 rather than the more descriptive “automatic system” and “effortful system”? The reason is simple: “Automatic system” takes longer to say than “System 1” and therefore takes more space in your working memory. This matters, because anything that occupies your working memory reduces your ability to think. You should treat “System 1” and “System 2” as nicknames, like Bob and Joe, identifying characters that you will get to know over the course of this book. The fictitious systems make it easier for me to think about judgment and choice, and will make it easier for you to understand what I say.

System 1 and System 2 certainly are virtual-like terms of convenience. Try fictitious characters without any one part of the brain they can call home. All you have to do is read. It's right there in front of you. If that doesn't describe virtual-like, I don't know what does. And if a fictitious character designating a part of the mind is not a term of convenience, then we are not speaking English.

After this crap, my enthusiasm for you just evaporated.

Ah... it doesn't matter. I'm bored with this shit now. I thought you had something, I thought I saw something, but I was mistaken. I'm sorry I wasted our time.

Enjoy the forum and please stay within the posting guidelines.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I admire your giving someone the benefit of the doubt Michael.

If "Eva" was half as smart as she THINKS she is she would be twice as smart as she actually is.

What I DO see is that she demands that everyone leave her age/sex/experience out of any conversation but then turns around and attempts to crucify people that have been on this forum or another for yearrrrrrrssss. Most here have probably been Objectivists longer than her PARENTS have been alive never mind her!

Yes Michael, sassy is one thing but I think she/it/is mentally unstable.

She is not here on any of the forums to LEARN about objectivism. She continually blasts anyone who she perceives as insulting her, her family etc.

But then drops that she is just a gurly gurl, dropped her leftist boyfriend etc.

Eva you are a walking talking contradiction. I would LIKE to be able to be wrong, put on the rose coloured glasses and think as Michael does in giving you the benefit of the doubt but I just think you are currently a toxic individual who at this point in time offers a negative value.(not saying this cannot change people often doo change)

Who knows perhaps you are applying to be the Richard Goode of OL.

Lol.

Dayum I cross posted with you Michael!

[tmj]

System 1 and System 2 are terms to use to 'free up' mental computing power.

Huh , great idea that , a simple mental tag one could use to call up a whole bunch of 'stored' ideas related to that term , without having to have the whole bunch of information in constant 'focus' using up computing power. Novel idea.

[Brant Gaede]

If "Eva" was half as smart as she THINKS she is she would be twice as smart as she actually is.

You seem to think we're under deadly attack fighting for our lives, Tony. Insofar as she really has nothing to contribute to a discussion of intellectual substance, she's no more than an empty pinata we can hack away at without wearing blindfolds. I'd say she's the other side of the coin from Greg, who can only keep repeating himself though yet to wear himself out. As a fountainhead of whatever she'll eventually wear herself unless she uses ratiocination as a tool to learn new things instead of dominating a discussion with what's already between her ears. I say let her gush. I see her as a paratrooper who has just landed sort of stagering around getting her bearings. Nobody knows her yet, and she hardly knows us or this place. Really. All this contretempts obscures her. She is outside our comfort zone, as is Greg, let's see if she can expand the size of the circle we like to sit in.

--Brant

nice crack, btw: (and) If you were half as . . . (just front running Eva)

[anthony]

System 1 and System 2 are terms to use to 'free up' mental computing power.

Huh , great idea that , a simple mental tag one could use to call up a whole bunch of 'stored' ideas related to that term , without having to have the whole bunch of information in constant 'focus' using up computing power. Novel idea.

I think you've put its worth rightly, tmj. This has value, intuitively feels right. Long as one keeps in mind it's an abstract model (a "mental tag") I think - the parts of which can be isolated for examination, but in actuality form one integrated whole.