What Objectivism means (or meant) to a non-objectivist.

[Dragonfly]

A moral breach is screwing some other person over. As in fraud, theft, murder, rape, and willful breach of contract. Morality has to do with not wronging others. Why is it that O'ists spend so much time re-defining words that are in common parlance? Why is the Tyranny of (re)Definition so appealing?

Exactly, that is the point. Objectivists come up with a new definition and then stubbornly maintain that their definition, that no one else uses, is the only correct one, as if there exists such a thing as the "true" meaning of a word.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why is it that O'ists spend so much time re-defining words that are in common parlance?

Bob,

Good Lord! Another one! You finally admit that dictionaries exist and there can be more than one definition for a word!

You are supposed to be pontificating about how wrong Objectivists are...

EDIT: I apologize. I goofed. You are not supposed to be pontificating about how wrong Objectivists are. You are supposed to be pontificating about how wrong everyone is...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivists come up with a new definition and then stubbornly maintain that their definition, that no one else uses, is the only correct one, as if there exists such a thing as the "true" meaning of a word.

Dragonfly,

I don't know what Objectivists you have been debating, but I haven't seen this on OL. What I have seen is people refusing to admit that the Objectivist meaning exists at all, stubbornly saying that such a thing cannot exist ever. And I have seen Objectivists stubbornly insisting that their definition exists and was arrived at through a conceptual chain.

Such critics, after denying the Objectivist definition, usually impute their own definition on the Objectivist argument, totally mischaracterizing it, then pretend that they debunked the argument.

Define your terms is always a good idea. Some people don't like to and this is one of the reasons. It interefers with bashing.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Objectivists come up with a new definition and then stubbornly maintain that their definition, that no one else uses, is the only correct one, as if there exists such a thing as the "true" meaning of a word.

I don't know what Objectivists you have been debating, but I haven't seen this on OL. What I have seen is people refusing to admit that the Objectivist meaning exists at all, stubbornly saying that such a thing cannot exist ever. And I have seen Objectivists stubbornly insisting that their definition exists and was arrived at through a conceptual chain.

Such critics, after denying the Objectivist definition, usually impute their own definition on the Objectivist argument, totally mischaracterizing it, then pretend that they debunked the argument.

Define your terms is always a good idea. Some people don't like to and this is one of the reasons. It interefers with bashing.

The point is that the Objectivist definition is incoherent and illogical.

Rand: "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most".

That would imply that an immoral crook wouldn't be able to survive on a desert island - which is obviously nonsense. What she's doing here is resorting to her well-known equivocation: between "pure survival" (relevant on a desert island) and "survival as man qua man" (read: "survival as man qua Objectivist", relevant in a society with other people), which are two quite different things, but she switches between them as if they're one and the same thing. Her examples of "immoral" behavior on the desert island are a ridiculous straw man: claiming that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing etc. Only a person who is hallucinating or has a serious psychological disorder would claim that. But there isn't any reason to assume that murderers, thieves, socialists or con men would think such nonsense and would be less able to survive on the desert island than Objectivists. The point is that what makes them "bad" in the eyes of the Objectivist is their behavior towards other people, and not what they're doing when they are alone without anyone else they can harm.

[Alfonso Jones]

Why do you need to somehow view "religious" connotations as being implied by this? Does any use of "ought" imply, for you, religion? If I wish to live, I SHOULD eat. Does this "should" contain some religious connotation for you? If there is dogmatism, it is the dogmatism of reality - if I do not eat, I will die. No wishing will change that fact.

Bill

Here are some common meanings of 'morality'. Notice the theme of an authority of some kind prescribing behaviour for no apparent reason. Of course if one wants to live one needs to take appropriate action but what makes it 'good' to survive and 'evil' not to? By using 'morality' it brings these ideas into play and it begins to sound religious.

# concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

# ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of right and wrong -- also referred to as "good and evil" -- used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments -- sometimes called moral values --shared within a cultural, religious ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

# A system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority, such as a church, an organization, a society, or a government.

"For no apparent reason???" So, to you, if someone speaks of morality, or of someone being moral, it implies (or suggests to you) the irrational or the religious? And the imposition of an external authority?

Well, there's the problem. To understand Rand, you need to understand the definitions she is using. To criticize her, imputing meaning from some other definitions (or in this case, connotations!) is sure to lead you away from understanding what is meant. Agree with her, disagree with her - - - fine. But save yourself some time and aggravation, and read her explicit definition (it has been cited in this thread) and don't assume she is using a definition contradictory to the one she explicitly says she is using, unless you have evidence that confirms she is doing so.

YOu would need to do this with ANYBODY. If they say: "When I say "rock" in this context, I am referring to a genre of music" you will be behaving most foolishly if you assume they are referring to a stone, just because that is another definition...

Bill

[tjohnson]

"For no apparent reason???" So, to you, if someone speaks of morality, or of someone being moral, it implies (or suggests to you) the irrational or the religious? And the imposition of an external authority?

Yes, exactly.

Well, there's the problem. To understand Rand, you need to understand the definitions she is using. To criticize her, imputing meaning from some other definitions (or in this case, connotations!) is sure to lead you away from understanding what is meant. Agree with her, disagree with her - - - fine. But save yourself some time and aggravation, and read her explicit definition (it has been cited in this thread) and don't assume she is using a definition contradictory to the one she explicitly says she is using, unless you have evidence that confirms she is doing so.

YOu would need to do this with ANYBODY. If they say: "When I say "rock" in this context, I am referring to a genre of music" you will be behaving most foolishly if you assume they are referring to a stone, just because that is another definition...

Bill

If what you say is true then I have to wonder why an academic person would choose such a well known term and give it a private meaning that only applies in her own new field? This seems to be just asking for trouble. Language is most effective when we try and use words similarly so as to be better understood. Doing what is necessary to survive on a desert island is "morally correct" according to Rand, but for everyone else in the world it's just called surviving??

[Alfonso Jones]

"For no apparent reason???" So, to you, if someone speaks of morality, or of someone being moral, it implies (or suggests to you) the irrational or the religious? And the imposition of an external authority?

Yes, exactly.

Well, there's the problem. To understand Rand, you need to understand the definitions she is using. To criticize her, imputing meaning from some other definitions (or in this case, connotations!) is sure to lead you away from understanding what is meant. Agree with her, disagree with her - - - fine. But save yourself some time and aggravation, and read her explicit definition (it has been cited in this thread) and don't assume she is using a definition contradictory to the one she explicitly says she is using, unless you have evidence that confirms she is doing so.

YOu would need to do this with ANYBODY. If they say: "When I say "rock" in this context, I am referring to a genre of music" you will be behaving most foolishly if you assume they are referring to a stone, just because that is another definition...

Bill

If what you say is true then I have to wonder why an academic person would choose such a well known term and give it a private meaning that only applies in her own new field? This seems to be just asking for trouble. Language is most effective when we try and use words similarly so as to be better understood. Doing what is necessary to survive on a desert island is "morally correct" according to Rand, but for everyone else in the world it's just called surviving??

Private meaning? She defined it. Explicitly.

Bill

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

You know, more than anyone, that I don't cultivate artistic snobbery.

You're right: I do know that. If there's been any confusion, I haven't meant to imply that you or anyone else on this thread has been a snob. My view is that people usually feel very strongly about the art that deeply affects them; so strongly that they can't imagine others not feeling the same thing from the same art, and they can't imagine others getting something more powerful from other works of art which, to them, are meaningless, or, worse, an annoyance.

However standards are standards. Here is an example of what I mean by vocabulary and standard.

I will not compare the way you said (Cole Porter song sung by Frank Sinatra compared to a Willie Nelson song sung by Patsy Cline) because within their respective standards and vocabularies, they are top quality. But imagine a Cole Porter song usually sung by Frank Sinatra being sung by Willie Nelson or Patsy Cline. I had this experience once with a famous (in Brazil) song by Geraldo Vandré sung by Luiz Gonzaga. Geraldo is a modern folk singer whose style sometimes reminds you of Cat Stevens with a Brazilian accent and Luiz was top of the line backwater Brazilian country. They were worlds apart and both were beautiful. Geraldo loved Luiz's version (but he rarely played it).

Getting back to the Sinatra versus Nelson or Cline versions, Sinatra's normal public learned one kind of vocabulary in terms of phrasing, arrangement, articulation and so forth. Ditto for the country audience. Both styles are similar enough for one to be recognized and appreciated by the other, but your Sinatra fan will never consider the Nelson or Cline version as beautiful as when Blue Eyes does it, but they can certainly find beauty in the country versions. Ditto for vice-versa. This goes beyond being a fan. There is cognitive learning involved. We could easily compare such a sound in the ears of one or the other as the difference between a Southern accent as opposed to a New York accent (although foreign accent comes closer to the degree of difference in this case).

I agree.

I think that stylization differences often stand in the way of people appreciating music. I've seen people discover that they like a certain song that they thought they disliked, but only after it underwent relatively minor adjustments in some of the things you mention -- phrasing, timbre, etc. Take a song by Pink Floyd and have the London Philharmonic Orchestra play it, and someone who hates Pink Floyd will recognize the beauty of it. Let Johnny Cash sing his own version of a Nine Inch Nails song, and suddenly Cash's fans can hear something powerful that they were missing in the "revolting noise of NIN." And it doesn't have to be a complex change. Take a violin solo that you don't like and listen to it played on cello, piano or English horn. A slightly different timbre can make a world of difference to different people. And it's all subjective taste.

Zsa Zsa Gabore was fantastic in certain roles in the movies, but she would have been a disaster in a Shakespearean drama. However, if a stylized version were put on, Shakespeare fans could appreciate it as a curiosity, but it just wouldn't do it for them like English accents do. Buuuuuuuut... if no one had ever heard of Shakespeare and the only contact they had was a version with Zsa Zsa Gabore, they might like it a lot.

Why?

I say it is vocabulary.

You can have stylistic vocabulary, rhythmic vocabulary, orchestration vocabulary, etc. If someone does not speak the language and wants to hear something else (like wanting good Wagner and getting good Heavy Metal instead), they will think the unwanted work is crap.

I understand. But I think the original point of this discussion was that preferring a certain language or vocabulary in the first place is subjective, and that there's no objective means to evaluate which vocabulary is better, or which specific uses of which vocabulary are better.

The idea that we can objectively measure aspects of a performance based on either their technical merits or their compliance with an established "vocabulary" doesn't mean that we can objectively measure music as art. I think some of the examples you've given involve switching the context from the measurement and evaluation of music to the measurement and evaluation of sound: Yes, we can objectively determine that a sound is not at a certain pitch or made up of a certain form. If we want to, we can even determine the sound's specific wavelength and pattern. We cannot, however, objectively measure and evaluate the goodness, value, meaning, expressive power or emotional impact of a melody, or whether or not it is objectively better than another melody, either within or outside of the same "vocabulary."

I've known a few people I'd call experts at music. They seem to know everything about it. They teach it, create it, and perform it. They love to write their own music, and when they play it for me, they explain the theories, or "vocabularies," that they used. They'll tell me about the complexity of the classical structure, the advanced interplay between various instrumental phrases and orchestral themes, etc. They really know what they're doing, theoretically, down to every nuance of every note and chord that they write.

The problem is, despite all of the knowledge that they've used to create their music, and despite the fact that I understand the theories and identify with the classical "vocabulary," to me, their work sounds like lifeless academic exercises. I'd rather listen to wind chimes, or to silverware being dropped down a stairwell. Despite the fact that everything about their music that can be objectively measured is good (the notes are played with the right attack, sustain, pitch, volume, etc., as written), and that the music utilizes the "vocabulary" of it's genre, my view is that it's horrible music, that it's horrible art.

I am one who had to learn how to speak several languages. I am far, far richer for this.

I also see musical styles as being similar to languages.

A couple of months ago I had dinner with some friends, and afterward they wanted to go and have a few drinks where there might be some good rock music. So we went down the street and found a bar known for having high quality bands. The band was awesome. Hard rock, very heavy metal. I was especially amazed at how good the drummer was. During their first break, he came over to my table and started mocking me with insider band humor that I hadn't heard in a long time, and I recognized him as someone I had played with about twenty years ago. We caught up on old times and had a lot of laughs.

This guy would blow away almost any classical percussionist with just his left foot. In my view, his band mates could probably improvise, in any minute of their lives, melodies (including in "vocabularies" outside of the rock genre) more beautiful or evocative than anything that the musical experts mentioned above could come up with after decades of trying. They can create and play at a level of complexity, control and precision that could be objectively demonstrated to be superior to the talents of many of the musicians that Barbara (and many others) would prefer to listen to, but I doubt that that would be enough to convince her that their music, as art, as a whole, is better than the music that she subjectively prefers. She simply doesn't speak the language, and I suspect that all of the objective measurements in the world would never override her subjective preferences. (Again, just to be clear, I'm not accusing Barbara or anyone else of snobbery, but just referring to her tastes as an example. Also, if any other aspects of my recent posts have been confusing, please cut me a little slack. I've got the flu and I may not be thinking or writing at peak performance -- or maybe I should say "pique" performance, since that's usually more my style ;) ).

J

Edited March 9, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I have seen is people refusing to admit that the Objectivist meaning exists at all, stubbornly saying that such a thing cannot exist ever.

The point is that the Objectivist definition is incoherent and illogical.

Dragonfly,

Man oh man, if that didn't prove my point.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Man oh man, if that didn't prove my point.

Of course you cannot answer my argument.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course you cannot answer my argument.

Of course I can.

[tjohnson]

Private meaning? She defined it. Explicitly.

Bill

It's irrelevant that she defined it explicitly, it's still a non-standard use of the term and as such is bound to confuse people, like me. If I was to claim that "cold" is being conducted through my walls this would be a non-standard use of the term 'cold'. The standard use is "absence of heat" so one doesn't imagine "cold" as an entity of any sort. IMO, this is similar to associating survival on a desert island with 'morality'.

[Alfonso Jones]

Private meaning? She defined it. Explicitly.

Bill

It's irrelevant that she defined it explicitly, it's still a non-standard use of the term and as such is bound to confuse people, like me. If I was to claim that "cold" is being conducted through my walls this would be a non-standard use of the term 'cold'. The standard use is "absence of heat" so one doesn't imagine "cold" as an entity of any sort. IMO, this is similar to associating survival on a desert island with 'morality'.

It may confuse people, this is true. But only if they don't pay attention. When in a context like Objectivist Living use of terms with Objectivist definitions might be very natural. If reading something by Rand in which she defines her term, and then immediately applies it, it is rather disengenuous to pretent one was confused and didn't know Rand was using the term in her sense, when she defined that term a scant minutes (of reading time) ago. And when one is reminded of that definition/sense of the term repeatedly.

Bill

[tjohnson]

It may confuse people, this is true. But only if they don't pay attention. When in a context like Objectivist Living use of terms with Objectivist definitions might be very natural. If reading something by Rand in which she defines her term, and then immediately applies it, it is rather disengenuous to pretent one was confused and didn't know Rand was using the term in her sense, when she defined that term a scant minutes (of reading time) ago. And when one is reminded of that definition/sense of the term repeatedly.

Bill

I understand what she said, I don't understand why she said it. Why take a perfectly good word with hundreds of years of use and apply it to situation in which it has never been applied to before and then accuse others of "prattling on"?

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most"

This only makes sense if you know that she means something very different by 'morality' than the rest of us, so why isn't she the one who is prattling?

[Mike11]

I understand what she said, I don't understand why she said it. Why take a perfectly good word with hundreds of years of use and apply it to situation in which it has never been applied to before and then accuse others of "prattling on"?

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most"

This only makes sense if you know that she means something very different by 'morality' than the rest of us, so why isn't she the one who is prattling?

The difference was likely not clear to her but that is a whole other argument.

After all, only Lenny was able to write the essay on Man qua Man while the brain in the room (Nathaniel) said it needed clarification.

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Boy, THIS thread got busy in a couple of days!

~ Re your comment in your post #80 "Since (by definition) there is no one to wrong, a moral issue simply cannot arise." Uh-m-m...you clearly missed my point as well as Barbara's about where the O'ist 'meaning' of morality is grounded within. I mean: there IS at least *1* whom one can 'wrong', no? Or, would you say that it's impossible to 'wrong'...one's self?

~ "By definition" you say? Whose? Yours, I guess; but this shows that you don't accept that O'ism is correct in identifying the source of the meaning of 'morality'. --- With no one to 'relate' to, no actions/behaviours are "moral". All 'morality' is socially-oriented, and mere self-'survival' is irrelevent to morality. Gottit. (Ergo, helping others to survive [a la LOST] is moral, but helping yourself to, isn't, correct?)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM (Baal):

~ Consider the likes of Idi Amin on one island, and Thomas Edison on an other. Both would be concerned with 'survival'. You really think neither could do 'wrong' to themselves re 'surviving'? Methinks one would put their MIND to the tasks of how-to-'survive'...whilst the other would merely ride on what they've already copied the motions of from others, and wait for 'Friday' to show up. No 'morality' relevent here re how they choose to 'survive'? I'd say that you say "Yes: none." I disagree.

~ Pity; this basic dif on what 'morality's really all about in where its starting-point is in being meaningful.

LLAP

J:D

[Dragonfly]

Of course I can.

Yeah sure, I'm impressed...

[Dragonfly]

ADDENDUM (Baal):

~ Consider the likes of Idi Amin on one island, and Thomas Edison on an other.

What about a Vietcong guerilla on one island and Ayn Rand on another one. Are you sure that the more moral person will have a better chance of survival? I have my doubts.

[tjohnson]

I submit that it's possible Rand took this stance on morality and survival in order to separate morality from religion. As I have said morality has historically been associated with religion with poor results and maybe Rand was consciously associated it with survival in order to fight against the institutionalized altruism found in religion. In other words, there is nothing wrong with prescribing a code for behaviour but it should not be based on some "authority", it should be based on man's survival.

[BaalChatzaf]

I submit that it's possible Rand took this stance on morality and survival in order to separate morality from religion. As I have said morality has historically been associated with religion with poor results and maybe Rand was consciously associated it with survival in order to fight against the institutionalized altruism found in religion. In other words, there is nothing wrong with prescribing a code for behaviour but it should not be based on some "authority", it should be based on man's survival.

Humans survive as part of a community. The numbers of truly isolated, atomic and hermetic individuals on the planet is so small as to be negligible. We are, by nature, social beings. We are of such a nature that we literally cannot survive alone. Human infants must be cared for for something like two or three years in order to be barely survivable. An infant left to itself will die. Biologically we are neonates. We are born at a much early stage of development than any other mammal on the planet. Why? Because of our big brains and our big heads. If we were to stay in the womb to be born at the same relative stage of development as, say, horses, women would need birth canals the diameter of the Lincoln Tunnel. Withing a year after birth, brain mass (and skill diameter) nearly doubles. Because of our rather big heads we have to be born earlier. If we are born earlier we need more care to survive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Your observation of Rand wanting to separate morality from religion was a side-effect. She actually wanted to ground morality on metaphysics and epistemology. This is why she defined morality as a code to guide man's choices of values (after locating man's nature and values within metaphysics and epistemology). It is a code of values, but it doesn't stop there. What follows is free choice. For Objectivists, morality is a standard we consider in choosing what to do. (There are other standards like whim, blanking out and so forth, but these are not rational.)

Bob,

Given the tribal nature of your posts, I certainly understand your reluctance to consider morality of the individual outside the tribe. I am not sure, but I am coming to the conclusion that your entire metaphysics is tribal at root.

Michael

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Methinks your analysis of Baal's perspective of ethics is correct: 'tribal'-oriented (or 'group-') such a morality-code is clearly based thereupon only; the 'morality'-oriented actor is to be considered irrelevent to his/her own actions affecting themselves, if such is to be evaluated in terms of 'ethics.' --- A bit paradoxically weird when one considers the bottom line of what one calls 'moral' or 'ethical.' Maybe more to the point: WHY one considers their 'bottom line' to be...only that.

~ Interesting that Baal has not yet responded to your, or my, points.

Dragonfly:

~ You 'have [your] 'doubts' re my Edison and Amin (or Ayn-vs-VietCong) metaphorical example being worth considering. Yeah; change my exemplified scenario like you did, me too; I never implied guarantees about Brains-vs-Brawn (or Nerds-vs-'Street-Smarts.') --- I implied: Who'd *you* bet on...in MY scenario?

LLAP

J:D

[syrakusos]

In the 19th century, the telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations.

That is a disingenuous example. Maxwell's equations, which form the general basis of all classical electrodynamics, were not needed for the telegraph, but they are an extension of earlier laws, and the telegraph was based on that earlier science ...

I gave several other examples. Do you consider those not disingenous?

• During the Dark Ages, new metals were isolated a...
  
• from horse urine to aqua regia
  
• Stained glass, dyed wool, pickled herring and the invention of bagels
  
• The telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations.
  
• Watt's steam engine was a generation ahead of theoretical thermodynamics.
  

Take bagels. You might say that only in our century did we have the science to explain them. Two hundred years separated the invention of the microscope from the understanding of microbes. And the microscope itself was about 200 years old before Ernst Abbe came to Carl Zeiss. Neither of them knew anything about quantum mechanics. Yet, they built the best of optical devices for their time... even for ours...

I do not call that random tinkering.

Technical achievements of any kind require focus and thought of some kind. But the metallurgists of the middle ages never knew about atoms (or needed to). We came to understand atoms only after the body of knowledge was developed that provided the facts necessary to the theory. I can only marvel at Mendeleyev. Bronowski said that Mendeleyev "played a game he called Patience." That was a deeply meaningful pun. "Patience" is the continental name for the card game we call "Solitaire." Mendeleyev had cards on which he had organized the known attributes of known elements. Many were missing. Off the top of my head, I guess that by 1869 perhaps 50 elements were known. So, he had holes, but those were the predictions that allowed this theory to be tested.

Certainly theoretical science -- mathematical physics, quantum chemistry, molecular biology -- is important. Once a good theory is invented, its testing and validation lead to new devices and processes.

As you know, for Maxwell's Equations, the telegraph is the simple case: the creation and negation of a simple potential field. But that dit-dah-dit becomes a magnetic field, as the current rises to the potential and then collapses. We have been broadcasting into outer space since the 1840s. But we did not need the theory first. In fact, we seldom do.

Even Newton worked from known facts of orbital positions and among his "facts" were the quasi-theories of Kepler. Newton brought all that together. His theories allowed the conceptual framework for most of what we call the Industrial Revolution. As late the 1920s, the Russian civil engineer, S. P. Timoshenko was doing basic (but complicated) calculus for General Electric in order to help them stabilize their generators. It was just "orbital mechanics" but mind-boggling in its intricacies. If they had met, Timoshenko could have explained it to Newton. ... but not to Kepler... Kepler lived in a different scientific age.

My point is only that theories are based on experience. There is no such thing as "a priori" knowledge.

[Dragonfly]

In the 19th century, the telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations.

That is a disingenuous example. Maxwell's equations, which form the general basis of all classical electrodynamics, were not needed for the telegraph, but they are an extension of earlier laws, and the telegraph was based on that earlier science ...

I gave several other examples. Do you consider those not disingenous?

• During the Dark Ages, new metals were isolated a...
  
• from horse urine to aqua regia
  
• Stained glass, dyed wool, pickled herring and the invention of bagels
  
• The telegraph preceded Maxwell's Equations.
  
• Watt's steam engine was a generation ahead of theoretical thermodynamics.
  

Take bagels. You might say that only in our century did we have the science to explain them. Two hundred years separated the invention of the microscope from the understanding of microbes. And the microscope itself was about 200 years old before Ernst Abbe came to Carl Zeiss. Neither of them knew anything about quantum mechanics. Yet, they built the best of optical devices for their time... even for ours...

Sigh. You don't need quantum mechanics to build an optical microscope. But you do need an extensive knowledge of classical optics. This theory was developed in the course of the centuries and without it Abbe and Zeiss wouldn't have been able to build their microscopes. That technology is the result of theory does not imply that the theory has to explain everything before you can apply it. Simple technology is based on simple theories, advanced technology on advanced theories. You can do a lot of elementary chemistry without knowledge of atoms and molecules. But the modern synthesis of complex chemicals would be impossible without a detailed chemical theory based on atoms, molecules and quantum mechanics. That a certain technology antedates a certain theory A does not mean that the technology is not based on scientific knowledge, only that the knowledge of A is not needed for that technology, although it is of course possible that A will advance that technology to a new and higher level.

Modern electronics would be impossible without quantum mechanics. Genetic engineering would be impossible without a detailed theory of molecular biology. Etc., etc. All your examples are based on theories, that may be simple compared to our current theoretical knowledge, but that were scientific theories nevertheless. As I already said, you don't need Maxwell's equations for the telegraph, but you do need the science that was developed by Ampère, Faraday, Ohm, Volta and Ørsted among others.

As you know, for Maxwell's Equations, the telegraph is the simple case: the creation and negation of a simple potential field. But that dit-dah-dit becomes a magnetic field, as the current rises to the potential and then collapses. We have been broadcasting into outer space since the 1840s.

No, the frequency of the signal would have been far too low to generate any appreciable radio waves. But even if it were the case, then it would have been an unknown side-effect which we couldn't have used, as we didn't have the theory. It was only years after Maxwell predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves that they were experimentally demonstrated.

But we did not need the theory first. In fact, we seldom do.

In fact we always do.

My point is only that theories are based on experience. There is no such thing as "a priori" knowledge.

Of course theories are based on experience. But technology is based on theories. It is applied theory. Just look in the dictionary: technology The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Dragonfly