The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics - Harriman

[Theodore Keer]

I have recently submitted the first non-hostile review of David Harriman's The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics to Amazon

Here is the opening of the review which includes a content summary in its complete text. You can read the contents in full at amazon (here) or at the same link below. If you appreciate the review I request you vote that you found it helpful in order to keep it above the hostile reviews on the page at Amazon. Thanks.

"A clearly written and fascinating tribute to reason," July 18, 2010 Five Stars out of Five

By Theodore Keer

In The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, David Harriman has two target audiences, scientists interested in the philosophy of induction, and students of Objectivism interested in science. This book has much to say that will be of interest to both. I recommend it most highly.

David Harriman is a professional physicist and philosopher with a wide grasp of his subject. Interested in putting forth a theory of induction based upon Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation, he briefly introduces his thesis, and then examines two classical histories of induction. First he makes a detailed analysis of the history of thought about motion from the Greeks through Galileo and Kepler, to Newton, Then he examines atomic theory from the Greeks through Lavoisier and Kelvin to Mendeleev.

His basic theses are that induction is based on a hierarchy of generalization, parallel in form to Rand's hierarchical theory of concept formation ( a subject too complex to address here, but which is covered in her monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology); that progress in science relies on not only on the experimental method, which he credits Galileo for first practicing, but on developing an increasingly sophisticated language of concepts, which must be induced in a hierarchical order; and that skepticism results from a flawed, context-dropping view of the history of science.

This last thesis is most informative. (read the full review)

Edited July 19, 2010 by Theodore Keer

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I have recently submitted the first non-hostile review of David Harriman's The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics to Amazon

Here is the opening of the review which includes a content summary in its complete text. You can read the contents in full at amazon (here) or at the same link below. If you appreciate the review I request you vote that you found it helpful in order to keep it above the hostile reviews on the page at Amazon. Thanks.

"A clearly written and fascinating tribute to reason," July 18, 2010 Five Stars out of Five

By Theodore Keer

In The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, David Harriman has two target audiences, scientists interested in the philosophy of induction, and students of Objectivism interested in science. This book has much to say that will be of interest to both. I recommend it most highly.

David Harriman is a professional physicist and philosopher with a wide grasp of his subject. Interested in putting forth a theory of induction based upon Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation, he briefly introduces his thesis, and then examines two classical histories of induction. First he makes a detailed analysis of the history of thought about motion from the Greeks through Galileo and Kepler, to Newton, Then he examines atomic theory from the Greeks through Lavoisier and Kelvin to Mendeleev.

His basic theses are that induction is based on a hierarchy of generalization, parallel in form to Rand's hierarchical theory of concept formation ( a subject too complex to address here, but which is covered in her monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology); that progress in science relies on not only on the experimental method, which he credits Galileo for first practicing, but on developing an increasingly sophisticated language of concepts, which must be induced in a hierarchical order; and that skepticism results from a flawed, context-dropping view of the history of science.

This last thesis is most informative. (read the full review)

Ted,

Terrific review. I will list a few of my preliminary concerns below:

Harriman seems to be talking about how science is verified and defended against skepticism rather than how science is done. I can already come up with counterexamples like Feynman's conceptualization of Feynman diagrams for electron-electron interactions which illustrates the importance of the individual's creative insight and that scientific discovery often involves an intuitive rather than logical leap. Feynman's diagrams had to be digested through a painstaking 4-year process of mathematical verification by Freeman Dyson before they were widely accepted.

Other example abound: Schrodinger intuiting the Schrodinger wave equation, Kekule positing the benzene ring after dreaming about a snake eating its tail, etc. etc. etc. If I wanted to educate a productive scientist, I would not shackle the student to historical precedent, but try to put them in an environment where they developed a full repertoire of creative mental imagery, combined with a rigorous grounding in both mathematics and experimental science. What about Rand's celebration of men of unborrowed vision?

I think the best books to shine light on the scientific process are written by scientists. I particularly recommend Eric Kandel's In Search of Memory, which is part autobiography, part dissection of the process of scientific discovery in his field of neuroscience.

Jim

Edited July 19, 2010 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Robert Campbell]

In fact, Harriman mentions August Kekulé in his book. Finding the correct molecular structure for benzene was an important step, from his point of view.

But the dream (or daydream) of a snake swallowing its own tail does not make an appearance.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just so people know, I removed Ted's moderated status.

I believe, underneath, he is a person of good will. And he certainly is intelligent.

Let's see what happens.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I'm not clear there was ever any reason to moderate or ban him in the first place...and I hadn't even realized that had occurred - I thought he had voluntarily absented himself.

Ted has always been one of the most intelligent, erudite, well-educated posters on a list that sorely needs them. While he can be insulting or abrasive or guilty of personal attacks sometimes, he's certainly no worse than George or Jeff or any number of others.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You always like to mouth off where you don't know the facts, don't you?

You remind me at times of those people who automatically think the USA is wrong, regardless of what the issue is, as their default position.

I suggest learning about something before putting foot in mouth.

EDIT: Actually, because of this crap you are now trying to start, I regret taking him off moderation. (He didn't even request it.) Now I think this thing has the potential to blow up again...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael, I said "I'm not clear". Not that I clearly knew there was no justification. And I compared him to GHS and JR.

Why are you so agitated at a simple question? Using phrases like 'mouth off' and 'this crap'.

Are you unwilling to be asked for reasons?

You are taking something as an attack which was more of a question.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Let's do it this way. If you want to learn about this, go offline and write Ted or whoever and ask.

Otherwise, stop stirring up crap in public. It's not productive and it reflects poorly on you.

Michae

[Guyau]

Thanks for the review and the notice, Ted.

I will be looking forward to comparing the proposals of Harriman in philosophy and history of science to those of Meyerson and Whewell (and to my own work on induction: 1, 2).

[Theodore Keer]

How ironic.

Phil, I had criticized Michael for commenting here on goings on at other fora rather than making his criticisms in those fora themselves. He then moderated me because he didn't appreciate some of the terms I used. I neither contested his moderation nor requested that it be lifted. I have been busy anonymously creating new articles at wikipedia, several of which have been featured on the front page.

I find it hilarious to note that the last thing I saw, you are over at RoR - where I am now banned by Joe Rowlands for being a "Christian" (!) - doing the same exact thing, criticizing the principles of this forum, in effect, behind their backs: Here's Another Reason I'm Getting More and More Disgusted with OL. If you want to challenge why I should be moderated, I suggest you ask that question at RoR.

Michael had the decency to say that he was moderating me based on his personal opinion of words I actually used. I was banned over at RoR due to Joe Rowland's feelings that I secretly support Christianity. (See this thread.) When challenged to provide a quote of where I had ever done so I was told the suspicion was based on a general feeling. This from an "Objectivist"!

I have no more to say on this. I will repost my review in full under my original sign-on in a new thread. (This thread was created with a different sign on because I mistakenly used the wrong user ID, and when I attempted to use the recovery tool it recognized my email but did not send me a reset link.)

Thanks, Stephen, James and Robert for your comments. I will reply in the new thread.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Theodore Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am closing this thread. See the same discussion over here.

Michael