dream_weaver

Far from Random, Evolution Follows a Predictable Genetic Pattern "knowledge of a species' genes -- and how certain external conditions affect the proteins encoded by those genes -- could be used to determine a predictable evolutionary pattern driven by outside factors." "The finding of parallel evolution in not two, but numerous herbivorous insects increases the significance of the study because such frequent parallelism is extremely unlikely to have happened simply by chance,"

A little thinking out loud. DIM looks at four areas, education, literature, science and politics, yet what seems to establish the base and foundation is education. How we choose to educate ourselves casts the mold, if you will, for what will be written, how science will be approached, and how the political agendas are shaped. What gets taught, ultimately filters up accordingly through these different disciplines.

This brought to mind a scene in "Roots" where Malcolm X is speaking to his flock while interspersed in his audience are several members of the news media. Malcolm X stokes the embers he's been carefully cultivating in his followers into a flame that licks out at one of the news media representatives whom he had singled out from his podium. Malcolm X did not appear to be seeking to surround himself with individuals that place a high value on critical thinking skills.

Why do you think he seems to be on the right track, if you are not sure if you agree with him?

Spiral, the more I consider this topic, the very idea of trying to address the arbitrary aspect of the assertion has to be dismissed. If a discussion were to ensue where the arbitrary was asserted, it could only be pursued by parsing the nature of proof and more deeply what constitutes the proper formation of a valid concept, if the assertion is to be resolved on objective territory, i.e. an identification of the basis for its dismissal.

Page 96, of the "Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion" points out “Peikoff insists that there is no way to judge what constitutes evidence for an assertion unless one knows what would prove it.” This is followed by the Oxford definition of evidence which is then followed by “… if one does not know what constitutes evidence for an assertion, one does not know when no evidence has been provided.” This puts the cart before the horse. The concept of gravity was induced from the evidence as outlined in Newton’s Principia. When one invokes the concept of gravity, doing so implies the various observations and steps (evidence) required to grasp it. Likewise to prove a case of murder does the same thing. If the evidence is consistent with what constitutes an act of murder, then murder has been committed. When the arbitrary has been asserted, it does so by referencing a concept that has not been properly formed from evidence, thus providing no recourse to evidence by which the assertion may be affirmed.

This equates that truth is a product of the consciousness deciding it, or a primacy of consciousness premise. When I believed that Jesus Christ was my personal savior, it was true to me because I was not cognizant of the criteria required to ascertain something as true or false. It was an error that was derived from ignorance, perceived as correct to myself and other who shared the same framework of reference. Reality and the relationship of consciousness as a process of identification to reality was not the standard of truth, thus the product (knowledge) was not measured in such a way to be able to determine if it was actually in within tolerance or not. Without an objective standard of truth, truth becomes whatever meets the standard by which the product is gaged and measured according to. Italics added.

In a broad sense, every assertion is produced deliberately, whether arbitrarily or as the product of a chain of reasoning leading to the assertion. Does whether it is accompanied by a mystifying commentary or the mystifying commentary is derived from a line of inquiry thus identify it as brazenly arbitrary?

Sprial Architect asks: Why is this important in the first place? The primary importance is how do you deal with an assertion that is incorrect. Do you inquire as to the basis on which it is presumed to be correct? Do you point out that it is incorrect? Do you simply not honor the assertion with a reply? The purpose of breaking the error down lay in selecting the proper way with which to deal with it. An inquiry as to why it is presumed to be as asserted is asking - how did you arrive at this conclusion? Do they have the complete Mises library on their bookshelf, did their preacher say it, or does Polly want a cracker? If you have no history with the asserter, this should help to establish a basis for determining if you are dealing an honest error, and whether the asserter is aware that the position may even be in error, If you are already familiar with the asserter's position (i.e. you've discussed it before), you need to assess the situation in which the assertion was made. Are they just re-asserting it knowing your position on the matter privately? Was it pronounced in a group setting where your response could be interpreted as a sanction or not. If it is stated privately, you could politely remind them that you've disagreed with the point previously, or possibly allow the point to pass, uncommented. If the assertion was made in a group setting, is it just an exchange between you and the asserter or did it come up in the context of a group discussion? You could publicly explore why it is presumed correct, dissecting it along the way. You could point out that you disagree but that this may not be the time or place to lay out all the cards on the table. This should also address what you ask later on in your question, How do I know the person is repeating knowledge arbitrarily?, as well.

Earlier in this thread, I dissed Prof. Campell's article on the basis of an ambivalence which was pointed out to me. While not a review of the presentation of his arguments, it weighed in enough with me to put a short ode together on 'arbitrary'. One of the things that came across as interesting is the etymology of "arbitrary", which also references "arbiter", which more or less guided the piece. To return to this thread and find the word "evidence" front and center is by no real means a surprise.

If you want to understand reason, understand concepts. If you want to study reason, study concepts. Concepts are where we store reason. – Harry Binswanger To understand man, or any other human concern, one must understand concepts. One must discover what they are, how they are formed, and how they are used, and often misused, in the quest for knowledge. – Leonard Peikoff Arbitrary The arbitrary, a will to judge, not always decreed law He who hears and decides based on what his mind’s eye saw. In cases where the law’s preset, and testimony’s clear Just verdict rendered per the facts shows truth has naught to fear. Arbitration used today outside the state run courts, Insist both parties do agree to bide by its reports. Integrity and honesty earn both respect and trust The arbiter who knows these things, consider them a must. Over time the arbitrary, tradition, robes once worn, Despotic stains, capricious care, whole cloths once, now are torn. Gradually descending, giving up its former meaning, About a century later was in thought much more demeaning. It’s chequered past; its history, is carefully enshrined In language as we use it, comes inexorably entwined. What things that we’re confronted with should we simply dismiss? Or examine with a careful eye, reviewed somewhat coulisse? How to discern the evidence is not that widely taught, Though proof’s onus is usually clear on who ought to be fraught. This method must be surely learned before it can be taught, The mind must first absorb what ultimately must be wrought. Gregory S. Lewis

Mission accomplished.

Mr. Campbell's piece may not provide a deeper explanation, but the first half provides what can seriously be considered as a thought provokingly deeper examination of Dr. Peikoff's treatment of the arbitrary.

They want the reward without the effort? On the chemistry side of this, in the logical leap, Harriman touched on aspects of the validation - distinguishing mixtures, from compounds, from elements by continuing to break the material down by electrolysis or other methods. That which could not be broken down further, additionally having uniform properties of hardness, melting and boiling points, were key factors in declaring that material meeting criterion A is element A, criterion B is element B, etc. This serves as the initial basis we distinguished copper from lead from iron etc. While this does not yet get to an atom of copper, lead or iron, etc, it identifies the first step of differentiating materials in this context.

Don't we still need to reconcile this against our current understanding of an atom's relationship of the nucleus to its electron, and deeper yet to the gluons, quarks, leptons or even photons? Photons are spoken of as an entity but quickly enters the problematic zone when it is identified as a quantum of light, quantum being the minimum amount of any physical entity (as opposed to what? the entire physical entity?) involved in an interaction. Entity approaches a conceptualization of something which can simply be regarded as a unit.

More like discovering the relationship between the non-propositional and the propositional, the grasping of which is also non-propositional □ □ □ Simple similarity given in squares. ○ ○ ○ Simple similarity given in circles Δ Δ Δ Simple similarity given in triangles. We can see the simple similarity given perceptually in each of the three examples is size. We can not communicate it verbally without proposisitons. Another similarity would be shape. By focusing on the single group of triangles, contrasted with the visual difference between one of the circles and/or one of the squares, the similarity of shape comes to the foreground.

Thank-you, Mr. Campbell. I will endeavor to follow the presentation of your arguments.

I apologize. I have not read your entire article. When I had read "Peikoff has yet to present an example of an arbitrary claim or supply any instructions as to how to identify one." I took it to mean that Peikoff has not yet presented an example, nor has ever supplied any instructions by which to identify such a claim." At this point, I asked myself if I really wanted to read any further. Your criticism is noted, and in light having this ambivalence clarified, I must withdraw my hasty judgment.

@ New Budda - I'm sure you will find Objectivism much easier to try rewriting than reality. With such precious little discussion of Ontology or Universals in Objectivism, this thread could end up being a rare treat.

Philosophy is the study of existence, man (consciousness), and man's relationship to existence (identification via identity). How much more at the base of the sciences, and by extension to the special sciences, can it be? @ New Budda: That looks curiously like Aristotle's law of excluded middle.

Could it just be that mankind have not discovered non-propositional justification for themselves?

The foundationalist approach has to be based on perception, not perceptual judgements. When I look at a tree and I say "That is a tree.", that is a perceptual judgement. On first level concepts, there is little disagreement amoung us. It is when we begin to use abstractions that can voluntarily be derived from entities in accordance with a method, that underscore the fact that most of mankind does not use the same objective method to arrive at a finished conceptual product. When you begin to examine the product you call "entity" with the product I call "entity", Grame's or Eiuol's - the disagreement points to the fact that we did or did not assemble it according to the same "blueprint" specifications. In my case, I know from introspection that I have to constantly be on my guard against the years of the practiced habit of rationalization. I learned language from others, books, schooling, dictionaries, etc. Discovering how to associate them properly to the perceptual material is learning how to observe aspects of the conceptual processes I did not know existed, and I am not always sure of what specifically I am looking for.

“then who is God?” The light dimmed in the room where I sat composing a response at the computer to a conversation about entities. “Brown-out” I thought, glancing up at the light and back to the unfinished response on the monitor. I arose and walked out into the kitchen. The digital clocks on the stove and microwave were out. I walked back into the room where the computer was. The computer and light were both dark. I walked back out to the dining room and retrieved my copy of Free Market Revolution and headed out the door to drive up to the local Big Boy restaurant. As I approached the first traffic signal and came to a stop behind the vehicle stopped ahead of me. Looking up at the light, it too was darkened, powerless to assist the normal flow of traffic through the intersection. I could see the traffic lights ahead where functioning and when the semi tractor with its trailer proceeded to move forward, I removed from the brake my foot, and applied pressure to the accelerator pedal with it. Arriving at the entrance of Big Boy’s parking lot, I observed a man and woman walking across the pavement. I selected a parking spot that was located directly in line from the front doors and moved the gear selector to the park position, turned the key to the off position and removed it from the ignition switch. After exiting the vehicle, I closed the door and pressed my thumb on the button with the closed padlock image drawn in white ink on the black key fob twice as I began to walk across the lane that separated me from the building. The click of the locks engaging followed by the beep of the horn confirmed that the fob battery still had some charge to it. “Excuse me, sir.” I heard. I looked in the direction from where the man’s voice had come. His face and posture struck me with sense of years of despair, frustration and resignation. He could not have been much older than I. “Yes?” I replied. “We’re trying to get to Flint.” gesturing with his lower arms in the direction of the woman accompanying him. I pointed in the direction Flint lay relative to our location as he continued, “We know where it is. We were headed there when the radiator hose on our car gave out on the expressway.” “Ok?” I replied. “We found out that there is a commuter bus that leaves from Great Lakes Crossing to Flint.” he continued. I pointed toward the mall he mentioned. “Yes. We know where the mall is, and we are willing to walk over there, but the fare to get there is $8.” He paused briefly. “Can you help?” I shook my head saying, “No, thank-you.” and proceeded once again toward my destination. I reflected on the exchange after placing my order. They tried to sell me their story for $8. If they believed their story worth $8, why not sell it directly to the provider of the service they desired, the bus driver? Of course they know the bus driver, bound by the work agreement existing between the driver and the State of Michigan, would make the sales pitch more challenging. I looked out the window I was seated at and read “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification” affixed in silver-gray lettering to the rear window of the cap. I remembered discovering “then who is God?” pushed into the dirt that had collected on the surface of the glass by an anonymous someone’s finger 39 days ago. “Some creation reports are greatly exaggerated.” I thought. Gregory S. Lewis