Illogical Leap: Why Harriman's account of induction is daft nonsense

[sjw]

Of course, you will probably respond in kind, complaining that I have not been giving sufficient thought to your insights, etc., etc.

And I suppose you might already know that you aren't giving sufficient thought and are out of your depth in this particular vein of argument or are too stubborn to reconsider long-held views, and sophisticated man that you are, recognize your best possible way out of this debate is to throw up just this kind of smokescreen as you make your way out the door.

Fine, I rather hope you respond this way, this, because the perceived absence of mutual understanding will give me a good excuse to nip this exchange in the bud. I've had similar discussions with dozens of people over the years (mainly philosophy undergraduates), and there is nothing I am going to learn from hearing the same hackneyed arguments one more time.

Peter is right: you're the master of the putdown.

I don't want to put the energy into addressing all of your misunderstandings of my view, I too am just not getting enough out of this exchange to make it worth my while. But in the interest of giving you the best possible opportunity to skewer me and thus teach me a lesson, if you should like to pick a single dispute or point you think I've missed that you deem to have the highest import, I would be willing to address it.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Of course, you will probably respond in kind, complaining that I have not been giving sufficient thought to your insights, etc., etc.

And I suppose you might already know that you aren't giving sufficient thought and are out of your depth in this particular vein of argument or are too stubborn to reconsider long-held views, and sophisticated man that you are, recognize your best possible way out of this debate is to throw up just this kind of smokescreen as you make your way out the door.

Fine, I rather hope you respond this way, this, because the perceived absence of mutual understanding will give me a good excuse to nip this exchange in the bud. I've had similar discussions with dozens of people over the years (mainly philosophy undergraduates), and there is nothing I am going to learn from hearing the same hackneyed arguments one more time.

Peter is right: you're the master of the putdown.

I don't want to put the energy into addressing all of your misunderstandings of my view, I too am just not getting enough out of this exchange to make it worth my while. But in the interest of giving you the best possible opportunity to skewer me and thus teach me a lesson, if you should like to pick a single dispute or point you think I've missed that you deem to have the highest import, I would be willing to address it.

Shayne

I am not interested in your "addressing" anything. I frequently engage in exchanges with people who have given little thought to a subject because it provides an opportunity for me to refine my own thinking and try different approaches. You are operating at a very low level of analysis on the current topic, and the returns to me have diminished to the vanishing point.

I am still wondering whether or not to reply to your attempt to explain your interpretations of Hume (in another post) by cherry picking certain passages from his Enquiry. And even with all the cherry picking, the passages still don't support most of your claims.

Have you even taken the time to read some reliable secondary literature on Hume? I doubt it, judging from your remarks. There is a lot available on the Internet.

The current debate arose from your assessments of the Harriman book. There are certainly some legitimate criticisms to be made about the book, but how you managed to miss those, complaining instead about some things that Harriman never said, mystifies me. As for your claim that there is nothing original in the book, I am left wondering how you could possibly know such a thing. From what I can tell, your reading in this area is extremely limited, so the question arises: Original in comparison to whom or what?

Good luck with your hit and run raids into Hume's writings. Should you ever understand what he was getting at, then you can tell us how we have no rational basis to believe in causation, the external world, our own identities -- indeed, absolutely everything except our transitory states of consciousness. Then you can assure us that such beliefs arise only from psychological habits ("customs") that have no rational justification whatsoever, and how we can succeed in life only if we ignore the dictates of reason.

Or, alternatively, you can tell us once again how stimulating it is for you to read someone who begins with arbitrary premises and ends up, predictably enough, with absurd conclusions. After you finish with Hume, you might consider reading Mary Baker Eddy and L. Ron Hubbard. You should find them stimulating as well.

Ghs

[sjw]

I am not interested in your "addressing" anything. I frequently engage in exchanges with people who have given little thought to a subject because it provides an opportunity for me to refine my own thinking and try different approaches. You are operating at a very low level of analysis on the current topic, and the returns to me have diminished to the vanishing point.

I am still wondering whether or not to reply to your attempt to explain your interpretations of Hume (in another post) by cherry picking certain passages from his Enquiry. And even with all the cherry picking, the passages still don't support most of your claims.

Have you even taken the time to read some reliable secondary literature on Hume? I doubt it, judging from your remarks. There is a lot available on the Internet.

The current debate arose from your assessments of the Harriman book. There are certainly some legitimate criticisms to be made about the book, but how you managed to miss those, complaining instead about some things that Harriman never said, mystifies me. As for your claim that there is nothing original in the book, I am left wondering how you could possibly know such a thing. From what I can tell, your reading in this area is extremely limited, so the question arises: Original in comparison to whom or what?

Good luck with your hit and run raids into Hume's writings. Should you ever understand what he was getting at, then you can tell us how we have no rational basis to believe in causation, the external world, our own identities -- indeed, absolutely everything except our transitory states of consciousness. Then you can assure us that such beliefs arise only from psychological habits ("customs") that have no rational justification whatsoever, and how we can succeed in life only if we ignore the dictates of reason.

Or, alternatively, you can tell us once again how stimulating it is for you to read someone who begins with arbitrary premises and ends up, predictably enough, with absurd conclusions. After you finish with Hume, you might consider reading Mary Baker Eddy and L. Ron Hubbard. You should find them stimulating as well.

Ghs

Good grief George, don't go overboard! Between your comparison of Hume to Hubbard, calling it "cherry picking" to answer your question regarding what quotes of Hume back up what I was saying, and your incessant chest-beating about how great you are and how dumb I am, even the fools are going to start wondering whether "thou dost protest too much."

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Good grief George, don't go overboard! Between your comparison of Hume to Hubbard, calling it "cherry picking" to answer your question regarding what quotes of Hume back up what I was saying, and your incessant chest-beating about how great you are and how dumb I am, even the fools are going to start wondering whether "thou dost protest too much."

With some people it can be nearly impossible to protest too much.

I wasn't comparing Hume to Hubbard. I was referring to your unwillingness to take a critical look at Hume and suggesting that the same attitude towards Hubbard might stimulate you as well.

As for the passages you quoted, they don't back you up. So what do you expect me to do? Go through each quoted sentence and explain it to you, as if I were teaching a high-school student? Read some reliable secondary sources, if you don't believe me.

Ghs

[sjw]

Good grief George, don't go overboard! Between your comparison of Hume to Hubbard, calling it "cherry picking" to answer your question regarding what quotes of Hume back up what I was saying, and your incessant chest-beating about how great you are and how dumb I am, even the fools are going to start wondering whether "thou dost protest too much."

With some people it can be nearly impossible to protest too much.

I wasn't comparing Hume to Hubbard. I was referring to your unwillingness to take a critical look at Hume and suggesting that the same attitude towards Hubbard might stimulate you as well.

As for the passages you quoted, they don't back you up. So what do you expect me to do? Go through each quoted sentence and explain it to you, as if I were teaching a high-school student? Read some reliable secondary sources, if you don't believe me.

Ghs

What I expect you to do is to actually refute, not necessarily all my statements, but even just one, as opposed to dancing about flashing your credentials while making clever insults when you perceive an opportunity. The former would be worthwhile; the latter is utterly worthless.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Good grief George, don't go overboard! Between your comparison of Hume to Hubbard, calling it "cherry picking" to answer your question regarding what quotes of Hume back up what I was saying, and your incessant chest-beating about how great you are and how dumb I am, even the fools are going to start wondering whether "thou dost protest too much."

With some people it can be nearly impossible to protest too much.

I wasn't comparing Hume to Hubbard. I was referring to your unwillingness to take a critical look at Hume and suggesting that the same attitude towards Hubbard might stimulate you as well.

As for the passages you quoted, they don't back you up. So what do you expect me to do? Go through each quoted sentence and explain it to you, as if I were teaching a high-school student? Read some reliable secondary sources, if you don't believe me.

Ghs

What I expect you to do is to actually refute, not necessarily all my statements, but even just one, as opposed to dancing about flashing your credentials while making clever insults when you perceive an opportunity. The former would be worthwhile; the latter is utterly worthless.

Shayne

I have already done this, e.g.:

In the Introduction to his Treatise of Human Nature, Hume was very clear about his belief that his epistemology would provide the bedrock for all other sciences, both natural and moral. ("Moral sciences" included all disciplines that study human action, such as ethics, economics, politics, social theory, etc.) Quoting Hume:

'This impossible to tell what changes and improvements we might make in these sciences were we thoroughly acquainted with the extent and force of human understanding, and cou'd explain the nature of the ideas we employ, and of the operations we perform in our reasonings....If therefore the sciences of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, have such a dependence on the knowledge of man, what may be expected in the other sciences, whose connexion with human nature is more close and intimate? The sole end of logic is to explain the principles and operations of our reasoning faculty, and the nature of our ideas: morals and criticism regard our tastes and sentiments: and politics consider men as united in society, and dependent on each other....

So much for your absurd claim that Hume "never had any intention of taking" his epistemological theories seriously so far as they relate to other disciplines. The exact reverse is true. Hume explicitly offers his epistemology as the foundation of a "science of man."

Similar statements appear in the Enquiry as well, and nothing you quoted contradicts this.

If you want something newer, here is a passage from the same post where you quoted Hume:

My point here is that Hume's "theory" assigns a substantial portion of human mental activity to "custom" or "habit", and it is in that sphere that what we call "induction" happens. So Hume doesn't take his theory seriously in the sense of ignoring induction merely because it can't be rationally justified; on the contrary he regards it as a gift from nature that his mind can induce, even though he has no idea how reason can justify the procedure.

Hume doesn't say that induction happens in the sphere of custom or habit. It happens in the sphere of reason, but we reason like this not because of any rational justification but because our habitual associations cause us to do so. (This curious appeal to causation while Hume is attempting to refute causation has been noted by many of his critics.)

You also state that Hume doesn't "ignore induction." This is typical of your unfocused way of saying things. In previous posts on this thread, I made it very clear that Hume set reason in opposition to human nature by claiming that reason does not, and should not, guide us in our everyday activities.

You say that Hume regarded it as "a gift from nature that his mind can induce." This, at best, is a peculiar way of putting the matter. Hume believed that the mind "can induce" in the sense that the mind can arrive at unjustified conclusions and act on those conclusions. He also believed that our nature compels us behave in this irrational manner, because to follow the dictates of reason would result in "delirium." Maybe this is what you meant, but it's difficult for me to tell.

Now let's turn to one of your earlier statements:

So for him, induction is just a black box where something magic happens, and he fully intends to employ this black box and live and work like an ordinary human being in that realm. He is really no worse off than someone who doesn't explicitly think about epistemology, basically all he's saying is that there's part of what his mind does that he can't justify in rational terms. He's not saying he's not going to use that part.

Hume does not liken inductive reasoning to "a black box where something magic happens...." There is nothing magical or mysterious about induction, according to Hume. On the contrary, he devotes considerable space in both the Treatise and the Enquiry to explaining exactly why we erroneously believe in the validity of causation and the inductive reasoning to which it leads. His explanation is a psychological one.

The latter part of your passage is very odd. First, Hume does not merely question "part of what his mind does." His repudiation of rational induction flows from his arguments against causation and the identity of entities, and these criticisms depend in turn on his theory of perception, according to which we are never aware of an external world but only of our transitory states of consciousness. Hume's critique of induction makes little or no sense if separated from its epistemological foundations.

Then there is your peculiar statement, "He's not saying he's not going to use that part." You make it sound as if Hume believed he had a choice in the matter and opted for using induction. This isn't his point at all. His point is that people have no choice in the matter. "Nature" compels us to reason thusly, regardless of how unjustifiable it is.

Some of your comments about Hume have the fuzzy, imprecise quality that I have noted above, and some are just flat wrong.

Ghs

[sjw]

First of all George, as I already said above, I have not read all of Hume. I am currently making my way through "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." (Last night I finished the part where he defined causality for the first time and judging by the TOC that *seems* to be the end of the core of his epistemology). So everything I said comes with an implied qualification "up to this point in Hume this is what I take him to mean." I should have made that more clear initially, but I did correct my error once you decided to actually underscore what was causing you heartburn.

That said, while I would revise some of what I said earlier in light of the latest things I've read, I think my overall understanding of Hume has merely been refined and extended not substantially contradicted. Continuing:

I have already done this, e.g.:

...

So much for your absurd claim that Hume "never had any intention of taking" his epistemological theories seriously so far as they relate to other disciplines. The exact reverse is true. Hume explicitly offers his epistemology as the foundation of a "science of man."

You are quite insistent on misquoting me on this, aren't you? Well I have already corrected you once. How many more times should you require? I'd rather just do the searching and cutting and pasting all at once if you don't mind.

Similar statements appear in the Enquiry as well, and nothing you quoted contradicts this.

If you want something newer, here is a passage from the same post where you quoted Hume:

My point here is that Hume's "theory" assigns a substantial portion of human mental activity to "custom" or "habit", and it is in that sphere that what we call "induction" happens. So Hume doesn't take his theory seriously in the sense of ignoring induction merely because it can't be rationally justified; on the contrary he regards it as a gift from nature that his mind can induce, even though he has no idea how reason can justify the procedure.

Hume doesn't say that induction happens in the sphere of custom or habit. It happens in the sphere of reason, but we reason like this not because of any rational justification but because our habitual associations cause us to do so. (This curious appeal to causation while Hume is attempting to refute causation has been noted by many of his critics.)

You also state that Hume doesn't "ignore induction." This is typical of your unfocused way of saying things. In previous posts on this thread, I made it very clear that Hume set reason in opposition to human nature by claiming that reason does not, and should not, guide us in our everyday activities.

Honestly, I don't wish to be insubordinate, I really don't, but I have to be true to what I know before taking into account your credentials and my overall respect for you. And given what I know, I tend to think that you ever quite entertained, in Aristotle's sense, Hume's ideas. Hence I think you never understood him. But even if you did entertain Hume's ideas, it seems that there is no chance in hell that you would entertain the idea that I might have a better approach to interpreting Hume than you do. Isn't that so? The thing is, if you're not seriously entertaining what I'm saying, then you're not understanding it, and thus not responding properly to it, and thus your remarks would be of little value to me in that they are not really aimed at anything I said, but rather at what you wish I had said (case in point is the quote out of context above).

Wouldn't it be quite the irony if you are dealing with me in exactly the same manner in which you had always dealt with Hume? And why would you adopt one mode at one time and one mode at another? Isn't the most principled and proper way of interacting a constant one, regardless of the credentials of the other party? Of course, if you had concluded that I was not worthy of an actually rational discussion, I think the just thing to do is just declare it so I would know, otherwise your misrepresentation is wasting my time.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I have already done this, e.g.:

...

So much for your absurd claim that Hume "never had any intention of taking" his epistemological theories seriously so far as they relate to other disciplines. The exact reverse is true. Hume explicitly offers his epistemology as the foundation of a "science of man."

You are quite insistent on misquoting me on this, aren't you? Well I have already corrected you once. How many more times should you require? I'd rather just do the searching and cutting and pasting all at once if you don't mind.

Here is what you originally wrote:

It is brazenly obvious from his epistemological theory that he never had any intention of taking it "seriously" in the sense you wish to assert here. (My italics.)

You denied something I said about Hume, claiming that it was "brazenly obvious" that I was wrong. I was very clear about what I meant, and I quoted a passage from Hume to back it up. I didn't misquote you in the least.

Honestly, I don't wish to be insubordinate, I really don't, but I have to be true to what I know before taking into account your credentials and my overall respect for you. And given what I know, I tend to think that you ever quite entertained, in Aristotle's sense, Hume's ideas. Hence I think you never understood him. But even if you did entertain Hume's ideas, it seems that there is no chance in hell that you would entertain the idea that I might have a better approach to interpreting Hume than you do. Isn't that so? The thing is, if you're not seriously entertaining what I'm saying, then you're not understanding it, and thus not responding properly to it, and thus your remarks would be of little value to me in that they are not really aimed at anything I said, but rather at what you wish I had said (case in point is the quote out of context above).

Wouldn't it be quite the irony if you are dealing with me in exactly the same manner in which you had always dealt with Hume? And why would you adopt one mode at one time and one mode at another? Isn't the most principled and proper way of interacting a constant one, regardless of the credentials of the other party? Of course, if you had concluded that I was not worthy of an actually rational discussion, I think the just thing to do is just declare it so I would know, otherwise your misrepresentation is wasting my time.

What a weasel you are.

You wanted me to specify particular points of disagreement, so I spent nearly an hour searching through old posts and summarizing those particular points. And how did you respond? You ignored every single point and claimed that I have never understood Hume. And you have the fucking nerve to lecture me about a "rational discussion." I should have known better than to waste my time like this.

If you want a rational discussion, then respond to my specific points.

And no, Shayne, there is not a chance that you understand Hume. Not a goddamned chance.

Ghs

[sjw]

What a weasel you are.

So, I pause to consider whether or not you are actually engaged in a rational discussion with me because, in my opinion, you are repeatedly taking something out of context, and you call me a weasel. I.e., the only possible inference that you will allow into your mind is that I am pausing not because of integrity, but because I'm trying to cheat. Then, after unjustly accusing me, you act like the victim.

If you want a rational discussion, then respond to my specific points.

A rational discussion depends on knowing the basis of the discussion. When I pause to try to comprehend the basis, you call me a weasel. That is not rational.

You seem incapable of granting your opponent his own space for his own thoughts. You want to straightjacket him to conform to your perspective on every little thing. That is completely unacceptable on a moral system that values the virtue of independence. It is completely antithetical to "freethought." Contrary to your assertion that I'm trying to "weasel" out, I am not trying to force this discussion to end, but your authoritarian stance is totally unacceptable, it has no currency with me. Maybe I made a mistake regarding you dropping context, maybe I didn't, but whether I did or didn't you have to leave some room for me to make an honest error, you can't throw around moral epithets ("weasel") whenever I go off of the course you prefer I be on and expect me to just fall in line with you and get back on your preferred course.

On the other hand it would be quite reasonable to specify the rational principle behind which my present course is in error. But crying "weasel" is just not going to work with me. I respect your stature, but I won't be intimidated into conforming to your preferences.

And no, Shayne, there is not a chance that you understand Hume. Not a goddamned chance.

Ghs

Given our respective evaluations of Hume, I would tend to think that the greatest authority on what he thought, Hume himself, if he were alive, would disagree with you. But then it seems that you don't grant Hume a lot of credibility compared to yourself, even regarding what he thought he thought.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

What a weasel you are.

So, I pause to consider whether or not you are actually engaged in a rational discussion with me because, in my opinion, you are repeatedly taking something out of context, and you call me a weasel. I.e., the only possible inference that you will allow into your mind is that I am pausing not because of integrity, but because I'm trying to cheat. Then, after unjustly accusing me, you act like the victim.

If you want a rational discussion, then respond to my specific points.

A rational discussion depends on knowing the basis of the discussion. When I pause to try to comprehend the basis, you call me a weasel. That is not rational.

You seem incapable of granting your opponent his own space for his own thoughts. You want to straightjacket him to conform to your perspective on every little thing. That is completely unacceptable on a moral system that values the virtue of independence. It is completely antithetical to "freethought." Contrary to your assertion that I'm trying to "weasel" out, I am not trying to force this discussion to end, but your authoritarian stance is totally unacceptable, it has no currency with me. Maybe I made a mistake regarding you dropping context, maybe I didn't, but whether I did or didn't you have to leave some room for me to make an honest error, you can't throw around moral epithets ("weasel") whenever I go off of the course you prefer I be on and expect me to just fall in line with you and get back on your preferred course.

On the other hand it would be quite reasonable to specify the rational principle behind which my present course is in error. But crying "weasel" is just not going to work with me. I respect your stature, but I won't be intimidated into conforming to your preferences.

And no, Shayne, there is not a chance that you understand Hume. Not a goddamned chance.

Ghs

Given our respective evaluations of Hume, I would tend to think that the greatest authority on what he thought, Hume himself, if he were alive, would disagree with you. But then it seems that you don't grant Hume a lot of credibility compared to yourself, even regarding what he thought he thought.

Shayne

You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

Ghs

[Xray]

One great merit of Harriman's book is that he dares to challenge the conventional wisdom about causation.

What exactly is "the conventional wisdom of causation"?

From a discussion on another thread about the Harriman bok:

When someone says they "solved the problem of induction," I take that to mean they assert that they solved it.

Perhaps I missed something (I've only read the book once), but I don't recall that Harriman himself ever makes this claim.

On the back cover of the Harriman book, it says: "Inspired by and expanding on a series of lectures by Leonard Peikoff, David Harriman presents a fascinating answer to the problem of induction - that is, the epistemological question of how we can know the truth of inductive generalizations."

In the book, Harriman speaks about the failure of philosophers to offer a solution to the induction problem.

"The central issue here is the failure of philosophers to offer a solution to what has been called "the problem of induction." (The Logical Leap, p. 6)

Could it be Harriman believes he and Peikoff have now solved it? ;)

On the contrary, on page 8, he [Harriman] writes:

The problem is to identify the method of induction, not to seek its "justification." One cannot ask for a justification of induction, any more than for a justification of deduction.

I don't agree with this statement in regard to induction

George,

What exactly is your point of disagreement?

A simple refutation to anyone claiming that induction is not "justified": "And how else do you expect to survive and acquire knowledge without using induction? Would you be who you are today, cognitively, if you had not also performed countless inductive processes all your life?"

Btw, in the Introduction (p. xi), Peikoff writes: "Ayn Rand regarded the problem of how we prove inductive generalizations as the only unsolved problem in philosophy." No citation is given for this remarkable claim, and I seriously doubt whether Rand believed any such thing.

I too would be surprised if Rand believed any such thing. On the contrary, she regarded induction and deduction as the two fundamental methods of cognition:

"Thus the process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction." (Rand, ITOE, p. 28).

Edited October 24, 2010 by Xray

[sjw]

You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

Ghs

I can't totally blame you for your cynicism, I've seen what passes for debate in online forums. But note how, in saying this, I presume honesty on your part, even though I have seen suggestions of its absence.

Regarding the basis of the discussion, the only thing that's really going to work with me is to take what I say at face value, holding that I'm saying it in good faith. You keep wanting to ascribe nasty motives to me where there simply are none, or when you are not doing that, to insult me for being ever so far beneath you as an explanation for why you disagree, which are the real blocks in this conversation, not the blocks you imagine that I have set up.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

Ghs

I can't totally blame you for your cynicism, I've seen what passes for debate in online forums. But note how, in saying this, I presume honesty on your part, even though I have seen suggestions of its absence.

Regarding the basis of the discussion, the only thing that's really going to work with me is to take what I say at face value, holding that I'm saying it in good faith. You keep wanting to ascribe nasty motives to me where there simply are none, or when you are not doing that, to insult me for being ever so far beneath you as an explanation for why you disagree, which are the real blocks in this conversation, not the blocks you imagine that I have set up.

Shayne

To repeat: You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

A straightforward answer would be nice.

Ghs

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

In the book, Harriman speaks about the failure of philosophers to offer a solution to the induction problem.

"The central issue here is the failure of philosophers to offer a solution to what has been called "the problem of induction." (The Logical Leap, p. 6)

Could it be Harriman believes he and Peikoff have now solved it?

end quote

I have been waiting since Ayn Rand died for some “new additions” to Objectivism sanctioned by the ARI. Perhaps it is time for a collaborative ARI effort to expand on Objectivist Epistemology. This new book may be the beginning of that process.

If the criticism is good, and if the peer review is adequate, along with Atlas Shrugged the movie being made, and The Tea Party Movement in politics, then we may be on the brink of a second Objectivist renaissance that began with the publishing of Atlas Shrugged, and which seems to have ended to a degree with the dissolution of the Nathaniel Branden Institute and then completely ended with the death of Ayn Rand.

I long for a major work from within or without the ARI. If it is from without the Ayn Rand Institute, and is an excellent piece of work, it will be interesting what the ARI does with the competition. If it is substantially innovative, and after review correct in its deductions (and successful in sales) it will be placed next to books by Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, and others in the philosophy section of bookstores.

Ah, the good old days when Ayn was writing her various newsletters! I would grab it from the mail and devour it. Now there is almost nothing new, and I am famished.

Excellent debate guys.

I would appreciate some quotes from your new books or works in progress, George and Shayne.

Independent Objectivist,

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

Ghs

I can't totally blame you for your cynicism, I've seen what passes for debate in online forums. But note how, in saying this, I presume honesty on your part, even though I have seen suggestions of its absence.

Regarding the basis of the discussion, the only thing that's really going to work with me is to take what I say at face value, holding that I'm saying it in good faith. You keep wanting to ascribe nasty motives to me where there simply are none, or when you are not doing that, to insult me for being ever so far beneath you as an explanation for why you disagree, which are the real blocks in this conversation, not the blocks you imagine that I have set up.

Shayne

To repeat: You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

A straightforward answer would be nice.

Ghs

I asked you a yes or no question about whether you believed in apriori knowledge or not and you didn't answer, and in that case your answer didn't even depend on a mutual understanding/agreement concerning the terms of the discussion. Note that I didn't then accuse you of being a "weasel", even though in my mind I still do not know the answer, at best I have a probability.

The answer is that I have every intention of answering your specific points, given that you address my points regarding the basis of discussion. You might start with retracting your accusation that I'm a "weasel."

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

On the contrary, on page 8, he [Harriman] writes:

The problem is to identify the method of induction, not to seek its "justification." One cannot ask for a justification of induction, any more than for a justification of deduction.

I don't agree with this statement in regard to induction

George,

What exactly is your point of disagreement?

The conclusion of a deductive syllogism is logically necessitated by the very structure of the syllogism itself. The conclusion follows in virtue of the syllogistic form, regardless of the particular premises.

This is not true of inductive reasoning, at least not as actually practiced. Ideally, we can say that the same thing acting under the same conditions will behave in the same way. This indeed is the logical foundation for induction, but it depends on a theory of causation for its justification. If, like Harriman, you presuppose causation in your analysis, then such a justification is not really necessary in that context.

Moreover, unlike deduction, the ideal form of induction can never be perfectly applied, because we never encounter things or circumstances that are exactly the same. In practice, "the same" means "relevantly similar," and this raises the question of how we know when things and circumstances are sufficiently similar such that the ideal form of induction applies to them.

The latter problem is quite complex, because it pertains both to how induction in general can be justified and how particular inductive generalizations can be validated. If the perfect form of induction could be realized in practice, the former would not be a problem. Only the latter would remain, and it would be solved by specifying methodological procedures, as Mill did with his four methods of induction.

Since we cannot apply the perfect form of induction in the real world (for the reason I give above), we are left with the problem of justifying our ideas about relevant similarity. This is basically the traditional problem of "essences."

The foundations of induction run far deeper and are more complex than the foundations of deduction. Even a Humean positivist will concede the formal validity of a deductive syllogism. The same is true of other epistemological schools of thought that differ radically in their views of knowledge. But no such easy consensus will occur with induction. Induction must be justified in the sense that the theory of knowledge on which depends must be justified.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

Ghs

I can't totally blame you for your cynicism, I've seen what passes for debate in online forums. But note how, in saying this, I presume honesty on your part, even though I have seen suggestions of its absence.

Regarding the basis of the discussion, the only thing that's really going to work with me is to take what I say at face value, holding that I'm saying it in good faith. You keep wanting to ascribe nasty motives to me where there simply are none, or when you are not doing that, to insult me for being ever so far beneath you as an explanation for why you disagree, which are the real blocks in this conversation, not the blocks you imagine that I have set up.

Shayne

To repeat: You have no intention of responding to my specific points, do you?

A straightforward answer would be nice.

Ghs

I asked you a yes or no question about whether you believed in apriori knowledge or not and you didn't answer, and in that case your answer didn't even depend on a mutual understanding/agreement concerning the terms of the discussion. Note that I didn't then accuse you of being a "weasel", even though in my mind I still do not know the answer, at best I have a probability.

The answer is that I have every intention of answering your specific points, given that you address my points regarding the basis of discussion. You might start with retracting your accusation that I'm a "weasel."

Shayne

Yeah, that's what I thought. You have no intention of addressing my particular points, and I doubt if you ever did.

Fucking weasel.

(I did answer your question about a priori knowledge of causation, btw. I gave a negative answer.)

Ghs

[sjw]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You have no intention of addressing my particular points, and I doubt if you ever did.

Fucking weasel.

More puffery and moral intimidation -- precisely the thing I said was blocking the conversation. The bottom line is this: it is more important to you to maintain your unjustified and unjustifiable authoritarian stance than to find out whether or not I would in fact address your points. This is evidently a character issue for you, it is evidently defining of the values you embrace and who you are. And that is where I will end my public analysis concerning your character as regards to this impasse.

Why I am I so self-certain? Unlike a reader of this thread who cannot directly divine my motives, who must use his own judgement, I directly know my own motives with absolute certainty. Therefore I know that you are wrong. And given that you are also immune to correction, I also know that you are dogmatic -- your methods as pertains to inducing what is really going on here are clearly very wrong. Which brings into question your methods of inducing as such. Which is yet another irony given this thread.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You have no intention of addressing my particular points, and I doubt if you ever did.

Fucking weasel.

More puffery and moral intimidation -- precisely the thing I said was blocking the conversation. The bottom line is this: it is more important to you to maintain your unjustified and unjustifiable authoritarian stance than to find out whether or not I would in fact address your points. This is evidently a character issue for you, it is evidently defining of the values you embrace and who you are. And that is where I will end my public analysis concerning your character as regards to this impasse.

Why I am I so self-certain? Unlike a reader of this thread who cannot directly divine my motives, who must use his own judgment, I directly know my own motives with absolute certainty. Therefore I know that you are wrong. And given that you are also immune to correction, I also know that you are dogmatic -- your methods as pertains to inducing what is really going on here are clearly very wrong. Which brings into question your methods of inducing as such. Which is yet another irony given this thread.

Shayne

I have no interest in commiserating with you about the basis for our discussion. Nor do I have any serious interest in your motives. I don't give a shit.

What I do care about is that I took an hour this morning to craft a post that identified specific points where I disagree with your interpretation of Hume. I wasn't going to do this initially because I knew it would be time consuming and probably fruitless. But I figured that I owed you the benefit of the doubt, because you requested exactly this kind of specificity.

My post provided you with the perfect opportunity, by dealing with specific points, to show why I should take you seriously in matters relating to Hume. And you backed off in a predictable manner with diversionary tactics -- all manner of irrelevant fluff. Oh, I must first retract my statement about your being a weasel before you will favor me with a response. Oh, we must discuss our communication problems, whether I take you seriously, and God knows what else.

We were supposed to be discussing Hume, not a marriage. Man-up, Shirley.

Ghs

[sjw]

My post provided you with the perfect opportunity, by dealing with specific points, to show why I should take you seriously in matters relating to Hume. And you backed off in a predictable manner with diversionary tactics -- all manner of irrelevant fluff. Oh, I must first retract my statement about your being a weasel before you will favor me with a response. Oh, we must discuss our communication problems, whether I take you seriously, and God knows what else.

We were supposed to be discussing Hume, not a marriage. Man-up, Shirley.

Ghs

My, you are good at concocting that which puts yourself in the best possible light -- at least to the lowbrow. But, among other things, there is the glaring fact that if you conclude I am a "weasel" on such scant and contradictory evidence, why should I care about your inferences in other realms, particularly your inferences about what I mean? That's not mentioning other issues with such behavior.

In other words, you're proving yourself to be a wildly illogical person to me, ever so much more than the lowbrow interlocutor who would attack me, and precisely because you do such a good job at pretending to pick up the tools of reason. But as any rational person knows, reason is not something that is to be applied on the basis of whim.

The irony is that if I responded to your points regardless of your irrational behavior, which has pressed me to the point of making an issue of it, then that more than anything else would demonstrate weasel-like characteristics, because it would demonstrate that I am a hypocrite. So it would be a nice trick for you to get me to actually answer your points before your either modifying your irrational stance or at least justifying it in rational terms.

Shayne

Edited October 24, 2010 by sjw

[Selene]

The caption of this cartoon is "I WIN...YOU BLINKED!"

Edited October 24, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

My post provided you with the perfect opportunity, by dealing with specific points, to show why I should take you seriously in matters relating to Hume. And you backed off in a predictable manner with diversionary tactics -- all manner of irrelevant fluff. Oh, I must first retract my statement about your being a weasel before you will favor me with a response. Oh, we must discuss our communication problems, whether I take you seriously, and God knows what else.

We were supposed to be discussing Hume, not a marriage. Man-up, Shirley.

Ghs

My, you are good at concocting that which puts yourself in the best possible light -- at least to the lowbrow. But, among other things, there is the glaring fact that if you conclude I am a "weasel" on such scant and contradictory evidence, why should I care about your inferences in other realms, particularly your inferences about what I mean? That's not mentioning other issues with such behavior.

In other words, you're proving yourself to be a wildly illogical person to me, ever so much more than the lowbrow interlocutor who would attack me, and precisely because you do such a good job at pretending to pick up the tools of reason. But as any rational person knows, reason is not something that is to be applied on the basis of whim.

The irony is that if I responded to your points regardless of your irrational behavior, which has pressed me to the point of making an issue of it, then that more than anything else would demonstrate weasel-like characteristics, because it would demonstrate that I am a hypocrite. So it would be a nice trick for you to get me to actually answer your points before your either modifying your irrational stance or at least justifying it in rational terms.

Shayne

Gee, I guess I blew my chance to draw from your vast reservoir of knowledge about Hume. What a tragedy this is. I don't know how I shall ever forgive myself.

Ghs

[sjw]

The caption of this cartoon is "I WIN...YOU BLINKED!"

I'm disappointed that George wishes to rate his authoritarian stance as more valuable to him than continued debate. I'm sure I could learn much from him, but not if he's not aware of what I actually think.

Shayne

[anonrobt]

"What we have heare is a fay-ur to comunicate..."

[Peter]

Anonrobt quipped about this discussion as a failure to communicate? How about too much communication? I am not a weasel! )

With Wikileaks about to release the names of our informants in Iraq, which is sure to result in their executions by the terrorists, I am royally pissed off.

Would this “leak” constitute one of those vague, evil acts, that demand retribution? Well, at least in fiction, they would, by James Bond. Calling this leaking evil is akin to Rand’s stating that the most evil man is history was Kant, so I will draw back on my rabble rousing.

I am not sure but would James Bond’s actions be considered self defense and not the initiation of force in this case?

Back to induction. I found this from a short while back.

Robert Tracinski wrote about an individual's inductive development last December, before the latest tempest:

When an individual comes to grasp or originate an important new idea, he begins with observation of the world, from which he draws concrete, lower-level conclusions. This is analogous, in the progress of a civilization, to advances in the specialized fields. Then as a man makes more observations and takes actions that produce new results, this evidence leads him to further, more complex conclusions. As he begins to build on previous conclusions to grasp a vast new abstraction, a man often—usually, in my experience—grasps it first as a vague "sense" which he cannot yet define in words. This, I suggest, is the analogy to the role of art, which is the means by which a culture often expresses a new idea in images and metaphors, before its philosophers are able to capture them in words.

Finally, as the pinnacle of an individual's inductive development, there comes the moment when he can name his new concept or hypothesis in words. At this point, a whole series of previous observations and lower-level abstractions are integrated into a wider sum, and connections and implications that had been merely implicit before are now captured explicitly. This is the analogy to the role of philosophy.

In discussing the process of concept-formation in the mind of an individual man, Ayn Rand wrote that "the process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word." This is what makes a concept objective and allows it to be retained and transmitted. Something similar applies to the role of philosophy in the intellectual development of a civilization.

End quote

Robert is more of a political chap, but when he ventures into philosophy I listen.

Peter