SCORECARD! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly to Mike:

>You're missing the point of the discussion, which was about Rand's claim that man's rationality gives the essential characteristic of man.

Yes. To elaborate further, Rand claimed that an "essential" characteristic was the thing on which all other characteristics depend.

But this definition, superficially plausible, turns out to be functionally useless. For we could say, following Ba'al, man's rationality depends upon his DNA (try constructing a brain without it). Or we could also say it depends on breathing; for if a man cannot breathe he does not stay rational for very long....;-) And so forth. So we could say that DNA, or even breathiing, is more essential than rationality, as the latter depends on the former, and still be perfectly consistent with Rand's definition.

Unless you get some serious Rand quotes in here, you aren't being fair or valuable.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

Brant:

>Unless you get some serious Rand quotes in here, you aren't being fair or valuable.

I don't have the ITOE handy right now, but you're welcome to look it up meantime. There's quite a long passage early on where she explains how all the products distinctive to man - wristwatches and aeroplanes, for instance - that animals do not produce, are dependent on man's rationality; thus rationality is the essential feature of man.

It's a superficially plausible argument, as I say. However it dissolves under examination.

Look, essentialism just doesn't work as a method of gaining knowledge. End of story. It's a relic of the Middle Ages, and contrary to Objectivist mythology, we only started getting out of the Middle Ages when we got rid of Aristotle's methodology. (In science at least. Unfortunately many of our social sciences, including philosophy, are still caught up in it)

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant:

>Unless you get some serious Rand quotes in here, you aren't being fair or valuable.

I don't have the ITOE handy right now, but you're welcome to look it up meantime. There's quite a long passage early on where she explains how all the products distinctive to man - wristwatches and aeroplanes, for instance - that animals do not produce, are dependent on man's rationality; thus rationality is the essential feature of man.

Rationality is not essential, but it is a -unique- feature of humans in the animal kingdom. There are all sorts of clever animals about, but humans are the ones that talk and think in a logical manner. Little babies born without a cerebral cortex are just as human as normal babies, but they never will grow up to be rational.

Without a doubt we are the baddest smartest apes in The Zoo.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 17, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[merjet]

Dragonfly to Mike:

>You're missing the point of the discussion, which was about Rand's claim that man's rationality gives the essential characteristic of man.

Yes. To elaborate further, Rand claimed that an "essential" characteristic was the thing on which all other characteristics depend.

But this definition, superficially plausible, turns out to be functionally useless. For we could say, following Ba'al, man's rationality depends upon his DNA (try constructing a brain without it). Or we could also say it depends on breathing; for if a man cannot breathe he does not stay rational for very long....;-) And so forth. So we could say that DNA, or even breathiing, is more essential than rationality, as the latter depends on the former, and still be perfectly consistent with Rand's definition.

The criticism fails. The relevant definition of man is "rational animal". The animal part is essential, too, and encompasses DNA and respiration.

[Daniel Barnes]

Merlin:

>The criticism fails. The relevant definition of man is "rational animal". The animal part is essential, too, and encompasses DNA and respiration.

Why does it fail? The "animal" (breathing, DNA) is primary to the "rational." Lobotomised, one is still a human. Additionally if the essential characteristic is that upon which all other distinctive characteristics depend, then one could perfectly well argue "animality" is the essence of "rationality." And so on and so forth.

Of course, I do not think much of my own counter-argument, as it is merely scholastic too, and if pursued will end up in various regresses (eg into the "essence" of "animal", on which all else depends, including rationality etc). But that's the methodology in action.

Whereas if we just treat it via the nominalistic method, and treat genus and differentia as convenient labels, and focus on proposing testable theories rather than debating the precise meanings of words like "animal" or "rational" or "human"(where disagreements are logically irresolvable), we can sidestep all that.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[tjohnson]

Unfortunately many of our social sciences, including philosophy, are still caught up in it)

Yikes! You consider philosophy a science?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly to Mike:

>You're missing the point of the discussion, which was about Rand's claim that man's rationality gives the essential characteristic of man.

Yes. To elaborate further, Rand claimed that an "essential" characteristic was the thing on which all other characteristics depend.

But this definition, superficially plausible, turns out to be functionally useless. For we could say, following Ba'al, man's rationality depends upon his DNA (try constructing a brain without it). Or we could also say it depends on breathing; for if a man cannot breathe he does not stay rational for very long....;-) And so forth. So we could say that DNA, or even breathiing, is more essential than rationality, as the latter depends on the former, and still be perfectly consistent with Rand's definition.

The criticism fails. The relevant definition of man is "rational animal". The animal part is essential, too, and encompasses DNA and respiration.

Merlin,

THANK YOU!

You are one of the first Objectivists (or Objectivism-friendly people) whom I have read to mention the animal part (genus) without prompting. Now if only those thirsty to make criticism and prove Rand wrong at any cost will learn the difference between a philosophical definition and a scientific one, a lot can get cleared up. I don't see that happening anytime soon, though, because I have mentioned it several times to no avail.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

GS:

>Yikes! You consider philosophy a science?

Well, instead of a social science, call it one of the humanities if you like. I'm a Popperian, we consider science to be basically a critical method, not a particular category.

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>Now if only those thirsty to make criticism and prove Rand wrong at any cost will learn the difference between a philosophical definition and a scientific one, a lot can get cleared up.

What, you say there are "Two Kinds of Definition"* Mike?

Where's that in Rand? Page citations please.

Or does this mean Popper is finally sinking in??

*scroll down for essay in question

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where's that in Rand? Page citations please.

Daniel,

Sure, for the upteenth time. I normally quote from ITOE, p. 289 - "Philosophic vs. Scientific Issues" and I am tired of doing that after so many times. Here is a different quote. ITOE, 2nd, pp. 233-235:

Philosophical vs. Specialized Definitions

Prof. B: This question pertains to the discussion of definitions on page 44. You say that the ultimate definition of man is "a rational animal." I take it then that it would be wrong to define man as "a rational primate."

AR: Oh yes.

Prof. B: Is that because man's distinctive form of consciousness makes him a basic subdivision of "animal" rather than just a minor subcategory? In a sense, all other animals are limited to sensory forms of consciousness, but man is rational. That means you can make a basic subdivision of "animal" into "man" and "non-man" on the grounds of whether the consciousness is rational or just perceptual.

AR: Yes, but what would be the purpose of this? Here you have an evaluative consideration entering. Is the distinction by type of consciousness more important than, let's say, the distinction between animal and bird, by feathers and ability to fly? You see, it wouldn't necessarily be important formally, as you formed the concept, whether the characteristic by which you subdivide is of a tremendous, momentous kind or merely the only one you can observe that is at all significant. After you have formed the concept, it is a separate intellectual pursuit to find out whether that distinction is really enormously important, which [in the case of man versus animals] it is. But that fact is not of significance to the subdivision, to the classification of man as a rational animal.

Prof. E: I was wondering whether you would agree with the following, which is my understanding of why the genus of man for a general definition would remain "animal."

Definitions and conceptualization always have to take into account the cognitive context. The normal adult does not deal with subdivisions like "primate." And, therefore, for a general literate adult, "rational animal" would be appropriate, even if for a more specialized degree of knowledge you need the further subdivision.

I can give this parallel: suppose a normal adult were defining "amnesia." I think a valid definition would have as its genus something like "mental illness" or "mental disorder" (with the differentia indicating loss of memory). Whereas the psychiatrist, who subclassifies mental ailments, could say its genus was something narrower, I think they call it a "dissociative reaction" or something of the sort. But that would not affect the validity of the genus "mental disorder" for a generally educated adult.

AR: Yes, that is correct. I would add one thing of a more general nature. Philosophical problems have to be solved on a level of knowledge available to a normal adult at any period of human development; so that philosophical concepts are really not dependent on the development of individual sciences. And "primate" or "mammal" would be a very specialized subdivision of a concept according to a particular science.

Prof. A: Then would it be wrong for a biologist to define man as "a rational primate," or would that be correct in his context?

AR: It would be correct in his context, if he remembers that he is speaking here from a professional context. And, as you know, they subdivide even further. Any subdivision within a given science is proper provided it is not substituted for the basic philosophical definition which is valid for all men in all stages of knowledge.

You don't even have to look it up. All you have to do is read what I have posted several times. I hope you don't want me to quote the whole book until you find the time to read one of the posts.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

You don't even have to look it up. All you have to do is read what I have posted several times. I hope you don't want me to quote the whole book until you find the time to read one of the posts.

Michael

Hah. That's ~exactly~ what he wants. He wants you to quote as much of it as you have time and patience to quote, and then he will selectively ignore and "demolish" whatever he chooses.

Why do "these people" come to a place named Objectivist Living and argue against views they haven't even read??? Or worse, ~have~ read, but don't bother to quote, instead butchering them so they provide convenient strawmen to "refute"???

I don't know how you have the patience to put up with these cynics and skeptics, Michael.

REB

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>You don't even have to look it up. All you have to do is read what I have posted several times. I hope you don't want me to quote the whole book until you find the time to read one of the posts.

Yes, I know that passage. All she is saying that experts in particular fields use specialised terms in their definitions, and ordinary people don't. Other than that there is no difference. Her decision to call certain terms "appropriate" or not is entirely arbitrary. For example, she says it's "wrong" for a normal adult to use "rational primate" as a definition of man, and should only by used by biologists!! She claims "primate" is scientific" and "animal" is "philosophical," but gives no explanation for this difference. In other words, it is a distinction without a difference; simply an absurd argument.

Whereas Popper shows that a scientific definition is the exact opposite of a philosophical one, (the difference is that they are both read in opposite directions) and explains in detail the consequences of this.

[John Dailey]

~ Jeez...I cannot keep up with all of this.

~ REB points out in post #116 (4 'pages' ago) that I used a phrasing, and argument, that LP used in some lecture (man, I gotta get some of these later ones, especially on 'Physics') aka "The Problem of Induction." Akin to my concerns/perplexities about the Psycho-Metaphysics of Sex per Rand/ARI matching the late Stephen Speicher's, here...

~ ...all I can say is: Great Minds think alike. --- Never heard LP's view...yet. Interesting that we picked the same label for it, true, but...I believe that I semi-argued this point years ago in the old ATL (some 'archivers' may have my posts [as 'Morganis'] therein.)

~ Just thought I'd clear that up. Now to read the rest (gah-h-h!) of this thread.

LLAP

J:D

Edited September 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, I know that passage. All she is saying that experts in particular fields use specialised terms in their definitions, and ordinary people don't.

Daniel,

I hate to sound Randish, but since you still have it wrong, check your premises. It's been spelled out more than once.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Roger:

>Hah. That's ~exactly~ what he wants. He wants you to quote as much of it as you have time and patience to quote, and then he will selectively ignore and "demolish" whatever he chooses.

At some point, Roger, you will have to accept that people who are consistently critical of Ayn Rand's theories are not fundamentally dishonest evaders of some self-evident truth, intent on creating strawmen with which to torture righteous Objectivists.

In fact I believe I clearly refuted most of the points you made in your previous couple of posts above. For example, your suprisingly naiive suggestion that there was a "world of difference" between statements "all swans are white" and "all swans are winged" because, apparently, flying is a particular form of locomotion "essential" to birds. Yet your argument is obviously false.

You might start by withdrawing that claim. Of course you are welcome to try again with another example.

At any rate, some clear counter refutations of my points - such as the above - might be better than these various ad hominems as to my character.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>I hate to sound Randish, but since you still have it wrong, check your premises. It's been spelled out more than once.

Let me get this straight: so you actually agree that it's "wrong" for a normal adult to use the phrase "rational primate" to define man??

Because that's what Rand's saying.

Can you explain to us all why this is not just entirely arbitrary???

Can you point us to the official Objectivist list of words it is "right" and "wrong" for normal adults to use in definitions?

Just so we know in future.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where's that in Rand? Page citations please.

Yes, I know that passage.

Daniel,

Are you interested in playing games or a engaging in a discussion? If you already knew the passage, then why ask me as if you thought it didn't exist and that I suddenly "saw the light" with Popper?

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>Are you interested in playing games or a engaging in a discussion? If you already knew the passage, then why ask me as if you thought it didn't exist and that I suddenly "saw the light" with Popper?

I recalled it once you quoted it, which I appreciate you doing. I'm sorry if I don't have ITOE entirely memorised as yet.

As for Popper, clearly I live in hope...

[John Dailey]

DB:

~ In your post #141 you say...

It [Piekoff now has some other process, apparently, that he wants to call "induction"] makes no difference to the fact that what is usually called "induction" is deductively invalid, and everyone accepts that.

~ As far as what Piekoff 'wants to call "induction"', I think it's possible that LP may, just possibly, be referring to J.S.Mill's procedures and not some fairies pulled out of his wishful-thinking hat. Your antagonism should really be not against LP on this subject, methinks, but, primarily to JSM, all said and done. Any probs with JSM's specifications on...dare I say 'scientific'...induction, 'deductive-lacking' they seem, would really hit more home against the idea of induction than what LP says...don't you think? I mean, LP didn't create the concept; he's merely defending it. JSM honed it to worthwhile useage.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me get this straight: so you actually agree that it's "wrong" for a normal adult to use the phrase "rational primate" to define man??

Daniel,

Nope.

Because that's what Rand's saying.

Nope. Not in the sense you mean it.

Can you explain to us all why this is not just entirely arbitrary???

Sure. But first you need to understand the basic starting point and you have not managed to do that yet. On the contrary, you make strident claims that do not exist instead of understanding the idea before speaking. I am patient, though. I have faith that someday you will understand.

EDIT - My post crossed with your last one. If I jogged your memory, OK. I'm glad I asked so there would be no incorrect impression left lying around.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

JD:

>JSM honed it to worthwhile useage.

JSM wrote quite a bit on induction, and thought up a few different types. In the end, however, he admitted it all came down to the same problem we all know and love.

JSM didn't solve this problem, he merely took the Humean/Peikovian etc line of accepting it was illogical but running with it anyway.

[John Dailey]

DB:

~ Re your assertion in your post #141, you say that 'induction is deductively invalid', such depends on what your 1st beginning assumptions/premises are, no? And, I must ask: what would logically justify them?

~ Please re-read earlier posts on 'deduction's only logical justification as being that its worth is from 'induction' about its characteristics of being free from error-introduction.

~ 'Deduction' certainly hasn't been 'deduced' as so...without prob-questions about the argument's starting assumptions.

LLAP

J:D

Edited September 17, 2007 by John Dailey

[Daniel Barnes]

I wrote:

>Can you explain to us all why this is not just entirely arbitrary???

Mike:

>Sure. But first you need to understand the basic starting point and you have not managed to do that yet.

Well, why don't you explain it anyway, for the benefit of others on the list, given that so few O'ists, according to you, bring up this apparently important distinction. Perhaps it is not widely understood. Who knows, maybe even I'll grok it this time.

So again: why is it "wrong" for a normal adult to use the phrase "rational primate" to define man?

[Daniel Barnes]

JD:

>~ Re your assertion in your post #141, you say that 'induction is deductively invalid', such depends on what your 1st beginning assumptions/premises are, no? And, I must ask: what would logically justify them?

According to Roger Bissell, Leonard Peikoff agrees with Hume that induction in the usual sense of the word is deductively invalid, JD. He proposes a different program, 5 points of which Roger outlines, which he wants to call "induction." I suggested Piekoff should call this program something else to avoid confusion, but anyhow that's the state of it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So again: why is it "wrong" for a normal adult to use the phrase "rational primate" to define man?

Daniel,

It isn't wrong. Not for me. Not for Rand. (If I keep saying it enough times, who knows?...)

Since you cannot get past this point, it is very hard to explain the rest.

Michael