Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 What follows is a series of posts submitted the early a.m. of March 31, 2007 in a thread titled by its originator, Victor Pross, "Popping Popper: The Critical Rationalism critique."I signed on that night (early a.m.) not long after Victor's initial post appeared. Anticipating that the thread might be deleted, I made copies of the posts as they appeared. The thread was deleted after the 6th post.Meanwhile, as soon as Daniel had submitted post #2, I sent Daniel a Personal Message giving him some of the background of Victor's previous plagiarizings. He'd meanwhile wondered if there had been previous incidents and was doing the search described in post #6 when he got my PM.I'll post each of the entries separately. In post #2, I've used the software quote function for the matched quotes from Pross and Dykes to make comparison easier.The time stamps on my saved copies read "Today, xx:xx AM." I changed "Today" to "Mar 31 2007." I'm not sure if the time given is my computer's time (eastern) or the website's (central).Ellen___(Note from MSK: Thank you, Ellen. Duly edited.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Victor Pross Mar 31 2007, 12:34 AM Post #1 $$$$$$Group: MembersPosts: 2,055Joined: 23-June 06From: TorontoMember No.: 188Popping Popper: The Critical Rationalism critique.I have been doing a great deal of reading of Popper’s philosophy, and I must say: I’m pooped. David Hume set the foundation for much of what passes as “Skeptical thought” these days. In fact, much of what Hume says is repeated like parrots by today's skeptical crowd. Arguments against the miraculous have not advanced much since Hume, although a certain rewording of his verbiage into different forms flourishes. This brings us to Karl Popper. Karl Popper, I can clearly see, constructed his philosophy on foundations extrapolated from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. But in this post, I want to take a fast glance at Popper’s philosopher inheritance from Hume. Hume, whom Popper called "one of the most rational minds of all ages,” is renowned for elaborating on the 'problem of induction'. This is a supposedly logical proof that “generalizations” from observation are invalid. His first premise was enthusiastic receipt of Hume's attack on induction. Hume, said Popper, had shown that: "there is no argument of reason which permits an inference from one case to another... and I completely agree" Elsewhere he referred to induction as "a myth" which had been "exploded" by Hume. He further asserted that "There is no rule of inductive inference - inference leading to theories or universal laws - ever proposed which can be taken seriously even for a minute" Sadly, philosophers have accepted Hume's arguments as a truism, and volumes have been filled with endeavors to solve his 'problem.' This tradition is being carried on to this day—and all of it with a sober philosophical erudition. And it all began with David Hume. Hume assumed that experience does not give us “necessity” further stating that “things are contingently true”, but that they could be otherwise. Basically, we cannot say with certainty that there are objects, identity, causality, order, and other laws of reality. Hume’s conclusion was that we are required to be skeptics. Science, with this approach, crumbles at its foundation because science deals with causal connections. David Hume contended that neither inductive nor deductive reasoning can supply men with real, certain, and necessary knowledge. He asserted that he has never seen “causality” nor experienced “self” or “consciousness.” According to Hume, men merely experience a fleeting flow of sensations and feelings. He also argues that the apparent existence of something did not guarantee that it would be there an instant later. Hume thus surmised that consciousness was limited to the perceptual level of awareness. And this is the same dead to which Popper’s “philosophy” (his carbon copy philosophy of Hume and Kant’s) brings us. Ayn Rand, it may be assumed, did not consider Hume’s philosophy worthy of elaborate refutation. (“But I don’t think of you.”) However, a strident case against Hume was stated in 1916 by H.W.B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic. "A thing, to be at all”, wrote H.W.B Joseph “must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connection between a and x implies that an acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be." Hume's premises are, to borrow Joseph's words, "in flat conflict with the Law of Identity."Existence implies identity. It is not possible to exist without being something, and a thing can only be what it is: A is A. Any actions of that thing form part of its identity: "the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is. Thus to deny any connection between a thing, its actions, and their consequences, is to assert that the thing is not what it is; it is to defy the Law of Identity.It is not necessary to ague this any further: Entities exist. They possess identity. By careful observation--free from presumption --we are able to discover the identities of the entities we observe, and we are entirely entitled to assume that like entities will cause like events, the form of inference we call induction. And finally, because it rests on the axiom of the Law of Identity, correct induction --free from contradiction--is a valid route to knowledge. To summarize: all knowledge of entities (and all knowledge of language) is attained inductively. For example, a child's knowledge of spinach is supported on a very limited sampling, and a student's knowledge of the word 'inference' is founded on a similarly narrow acquaintance. If it were true that induction is a myth, then all of mankind's knowledge of external reality, all language, all science--and all human thought - which depends on knowledge of reality and on language - would be myths as well. Incidentally, this includes Critical Rationalism. In view of the above, wholesale dismissal of Ayn Rand's ethics is as idiotic as criticizing the principles of civil engineering by saying that "the entire system is subjectively dependent on the individual designer's whim.” In both cases, what makes the theory objective is if it identifies the means that are objectively necessary for achieving an end result (in the case of ethics--your own survival; in the case of civil engineering--having the building remain standing). The study of ethics is a form of applied knowledge, similar to engineering or medicine, whose purpose is to identify the means needed for achieving certain results in order to guide the actions of those who want to accomplish these results. Ethics, it is true, is a field that is wider in scope and more fundamental than other forms of applied knowledge, because it guides the most basic choices that affect everything in your life. But the pattern and basic principles are the same. Aristotle showed the truth of the law of causality, though Hume missed it. Ayn Rand showed the good of this-worldly values, though too late for Hume to take note. Popper, as a professional philosopher of the 20th century, has no excuse. **This post has been edited by Victor Pross: Today, 01:15 AM--------------------Writer...artist...Objectivist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Daniel Barnes Mar 31 2007, 01:22 AM Post #2 $$$Group: MembersPosts: 149Joined: 27-May 06Member No.: 165Victor Pross;>I have been doing a great deal of reading of Popper’s philosophy, and I must say: I’m pooped. Actually, Victor, the only thing you seem to have been doing is a great deal of plagiarising.I wasn't going to add to this thread, but having read Victor's post I am somewhat amused - and not in the least suprised - to point out that it is mostly cribbed from Nicholas Dykes' old critique "Debunking Popper" - right down to the HWB Joseph references, and much of it simply word for word. I read have read Dykes piece many times - I recognised it immediately. Yet he gives no attribution to Dykes whatsoever. Victor, you are clearly attempting to pass off the man's work - largely incorrect as it is - as your own.I invite readers to compare below."Hume, whom Popper called "one of the most rational minds of all ages,” is renowned for elaborating on the 'problem of induction'. This is a supposedly logical proof that “generalizations” from observation are invalid." "Hume, whom Popper called "one of the most rational minds of all ages" [PKP2 1019], is renowned for elaborating the 'problem of induction' - a supposedly logical proof that generalisations from observation are invalid.""Existence implies identity. It is not possible to exist without being something, and a thing can only be what it is: A is A. Any actions of that thing form part of its identity: "the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is. Thus to deny any connection between a thing, its actions, and their consequences, is to assert that the thing is not what it is; it is to defy the Law of Identity.""Existence implies identity. It is not possible to exist without being something, and a thing can only be what it is: A is A. Any actions of that thing form part of its identity: "the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is. Thus to deny any connection between a thing, its actions, and their consequences, is to assert that the thing is not what it is; it is to defy the Law of Identity." "However, a strident case against Hume was stated in 1916 by H.W.B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic. "A thing, to be at all”, wrote H.W.B Joseph “must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connection between a and x implies that an acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be." Hume's premises are, to borrow Joseph's words, "in flat conflict with the Law of Identity.""The crux of the case against Hume was stated in 1916 by H.W.B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic: "A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connexion between a and x implies that a acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be." Hume's whole argument - persuasive though it may be - is, to borrow Joseph's words, "in flat conflict with the Law of Identity.""And so on, for more of the same. For interested readers, Dykes original essay is here:http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htmDo you think we are stupid, boy? Do you think that, like you, we came down in the last shower? Dykes' essay has been around for ever, and is laughably bad. I even know the name of the fellow who gave Dykes his first Ayn Rand book!You are a grade-A phoney, sir. As was completely obvious to me from your first sentence in our exchange to your last. I was right: you know not of what you speak. You have read nothing, you know nothing. Mr Kelly, over to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Victor Pross Mar 31 2007, 01:28 AM Post #3 $$$$$$Group: MembersPosts: 2,056Joined: 23-June 06From: TorontoMember No.: 188Daniel, I am quoting the man's quotes, and it is clear to anybody that poppers's philosophy is that of Kant's and Hume's philosophy. Tons of writers recognize the obvious. Why the cheap shot? Does a critique of your idol sting that much? Still, I was still editing my post before you sprung out. And this 'from my first word to the last' in nonsense.This post has been edited by Victor Pross: Today, 01:42 AM--------------------Writer...artist...Objectivist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 ENonemaker Mar 31 2007, 01:44 AM Post #4 $$Group: MembersPosts: 75Joined: 20-December 06From: MarylandMember No.: 583Philosophy (as it should be): otherwise known as, The Art of Stating the Obvious.**Is it just me (and I know it's not), or does anybody else just get completely BAFFLED at some of these pseudo-intellectual, mystical, reality-denying concepts that are so wont to pop up all over the history of man's thought? And you're not lost because they're difficult to understand or anything - you're baffled just at the fact that people can ACTUALLY come up with these ideas, and, furthermore, *believe* them! Things don't have identity? A does not equal A? What the hell!?These men go through, what, thirty years of schooling, and are regarded as the supreme intellects of the day, and go down in history, all because they managed to *retrogress* to a state *worse* than infantilism! A toddler knows more than they do! Because when you ask a toddler what color that delightful azure sky is, he will reply, "BLUE!"; he will not stroke his scruff of a beard, shoot you a coy little glance and murmur: "Ah, my friend, such a question reveals your intrinsic dependency on empirical fallacy, when after all such concepts as 'sky' and 'color' are merely projections of your sorely inadequate consciousness, and since the latter's formation is dependent on extraneous input there is no reason whatsoever to trust its perception; reason, after all, is a concept of said flawed consciousness and thus also should not be trusted."NO I'M SORRY I THINK THE ANSWER WAS ACTUALLY "BLUE."I almost find discussion of the topics ridiculous. But what's more ridiculous is that discussion *is* necessary, since people *do* believe it - since it is actually even quite prevalent!The foremost example that pops into my mind is the Catholic Church's practice of Holy Communion. Catechism teaches that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist: that although it looks, smells, feels, tastes like bread. . . what it *is*, is actually Jesus' flesh. The mental process required to accept this teaching is the suspension of the Law of Identity - to "realize" that what makes a thing's "is" is not its real, physical characteristics, but. . . . . .something. . . . . ."else."I doubt that the choir I accompany would apply the same "logic" to the music I play after Communion. If, say, I sat down at the piano and began to play something completely different than what we rehearsed; or, better yet, if I banged at random on the keys or started gnawing on the piano legs -- and then later claimed, "Oh no, that was in fact the song, although it didn't sound like it at all, it *was* the song." I *think*. . . (and this is just a hypothesis). . . I *think* I might be promptly fired.*sigh*Goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Victor Pross Mar 31 2007, 02:01 AM Post #5 $$$$$$Group: MembersPosts: 2,056Joined: 23-June 06From: TorontoMember No.: 188[Repeat of Elizabeth's post #4 deleted.]Liz, As a matter of fact, I have been reading about Popper and his philosophy. He is the top dog of 20th century pseudo-intellectuals, riding on the Kant/Hume legacy. The critics of Popper are of one voice: Popper Posed as a proponent of a scientific method. But his philosophy core creeds are: (1) that induction is a myth, (2) that scientific theories are at root arbitrary constructs, (3) the absence of falsification—rather than positive evidence—is the standard for adopting scientific conclusions---and that is the most ridiculous. You are merely one more voice speaking out against the palatably ridiculous. And I can see you are baffled. You have good reason to be. (Of course, you can see that every philosopher can have their worshippers, and not just Rand). -Victor--------------------Writer...artist...Objectivist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 Daniel Barnes Mar 31 2007, 02:04 AM Post #6 $$$Group: MembersPosts: 149Joined: 27-May 06Member No.: 165Oh, I see. Predictably he's been at it before. Yahoo search "Victor Pross plagiarism" and here's what comes up:http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...p?showtopic=898Hey, what an entity *is* determines what it *does* after all!___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Ellen,As requested, this thread is now locked. It is online merely for historical reference, not for discussion. Thank you for posting it with the time stamps.OL offers its deepest apologies to Nicholas Dykes.EDIT: Oops. I almost forgot. Many thanks to Daniel Barnes for the bust. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts