Adding Peikoff to Wiki's entry on inductive reasoning

[TheEgoist]

So today on one of my many adventures through Wikipedia, I was led to the site's entry on inductive reasoning. I was not expecting to see anything from Peikoff or Rand, but I thought, as I read through that it would be appropriate to include something about Objectivism and Dr. Peikoff's work with induction specifically. I've never listened to a full series on the matter from him though, so I don't think I would be up to the task of posting a concise, orderly and comprehensive entry. However, I am proposing the idea and would like to see someone with better knowledge of Peikoff's views and of wiki-editing in general to take the task upon themselves.

What say you?

Also, I realize some people here have issues with Wiki both ideologically and personally. I don't want this to turn into a debate on the matter. Direct your ire to one of the many threads on the subject, please.

[John Donohue]

There is no doubt that article needs an entry on Ayn Rand.

It is remarkable that in the history of philosophy few have acknowledged the requirement of validating the existents present in a chain of deductive reasoning, which Rand announces must come first.

It is also remarkable that the edifice of scientific classification of flora and fauna requires the exact method explained by Rand's concept formation, which is driven by induction, yet induction is excoriated by establishment philosophers. That has to be toxic for science. Popper's attempt to 'soften' this disjoint only makes matters worse, in my opinion.

I once confronted a theist Kantian on this. 'How do you validate the existents in your deductive arguments?' He told me baldly: "They are divinely revealed." You can see how this would permit the use of existents in a deductive argument that are not identifiable in objective reality, and that conclusions from the resulting deductions can be valorized, despite being built on void existents.

The other evidence that the scorning of induction is Platonic is the lack of context. Context is the surrender to the finite. We frame the context first, then validate the concepts inside that context. The White/Black swan case is a perfect example. Platonists insist that since induction cannot provide omniscient, infinite truth then the method itself is useless. This is consistent with Plato's construct that the Truth resides only in the Forms and that human reason cannot attain it.

[bluecherry]

I'd like to see such a theistic Kantian challenged to put his money where his mouth is. Put him in general sensory deprivation in a room full of sharp objects and then see if he'd be willing to go walk around relying on divine revelation to tell him where to go to not get himself killed.

Also, this whole technical philosophic view of "If it isn't everything, then it counts for nothing" is really stupid and just annoying. I'd bet on it that none of them would take a similar view that they'd reject a billion dollars (regardless of how it was gotten) on the basis that because it wasn't all the money in existence it was worthless/useless/counted for nothing, and they weren't going to deal with it.

[Grames]

Wikipedia is about conventional wisdom. Dr. Peikoff himself has not even published anything yet, there are no criticisms of the unpublished, therefore there is no conventional wisdom to be added to the Wikipedia entry.

(I'm not debating Wiki's value, that is just the way it is.)

[Plasmatic]

Popper's attempt to 'soften' this disjoint only makes matters worse, in my opinion.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "soften"t here? I have been reading Popper lately in direct relation to this topic. Im just curious how you take this to be so.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Saint Russell]

Wikipedia is about conventional wisdom. Dr. Peikoff himself has not even published anything yet, there are no criticisms of the unpublished, therefore there is no conventional wisdom to be added to the Wikipedia entry.

(I'm not debating Wiki's value, that is just the way it is.)

Yup, that's exactly right. What Wikipedia will allow in an article like this is whatever a typical academic philosopher (or even a significant minority of such folks) would consider appropriate.

[John Donohue]

Briefly, and only in my opinion on the matter, I think the success of science between Hume and the mid 20th century made it hard to deny induction, especially since the methods of science are so 'secular.'

Instead of helping to elevate induction, Popper just "jumps over" it and posits an important-seeming project: falsifiability. He gets to deny that anything phenomenal can ever scientifically be proven true, thus keeping his Kantian credentials intact and the notion of context fully at bay. Yet he seems to throw a token bone to science with the idea that (full paraphrase by me) 'a least we can tell if a conjecture is scientific or not.' If there is no way the conjecture could be proven false upon further evidence, then that is not a scientific idea and no energy should be granted to it. If it is readily apparent that conjecture 'might' be proven false by the discovery of an exception, then it is worthy of scientific concern even though it can never be proven. So how do you proceed? Reject the unfalsifiabile at once and for the falsifiabile just keep looking for the exceptions. You must look in 'all possible worlds.' At no point declare truth, just because you don't find one for a long time; duration gets you no closer to earning the appellation "true."

So....how do you pick your conjectures? Random, dude.

[Plasmatic]

"

So....how do you pick your conjectures? Random, dude.

Actually he considered it to be from "intuition". But yes arbitrary conventions are his thing. But He thought induction did not exist. This is why I wondered how you proposed he "softened" this. He rejected it in total.

[John Donohue]

He 'thought [induction] did not exist' yet he 'rejected it in total'?

That does not make sense. Please clarify.

The softening I referred to is my little idea that the harsh disconnect betweeh the Humian discredit of induction and the brilliant success of induction in science threatened the root of Platonic denial of truth validation for phenomena. Popper eases the strain. Falsifiability helps keep it safe for every neo-Platonist to say "there are no absolutes."

[Plasmatic]

He 'thought [induction] did not exist' yet he 'rejected it in total'?

That does not make sense. Please clarify.

The softening I referred to is my little idea that the harsh disconnect betweeh the Humian discredit of induction and the brilliant success of induction in science threatened the root of Platonic denial of truth validation for phenomena. Popper eases the strain. Falsifiability helps keep it safe for every neo-Platonist to say "there are no absolutes."

He rejected that induction existed in total:

Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ [whatever that may mean], is logically inadmissible.

Popper TLOSD

But I see what you meant now. His "falsafiability" obfuscates ("softens") his outright skepticism.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Alone]

I'd like to see such a theistic Kantian challenged to put his money where his mouth is. Put him in general sensory deprivation in a room full of sharp objects and then see if he'd be willing to go walk around relying on divine revelation to tell him where to go to not get himself killed.

They're way ahead of you... (or so they think)

...remember, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God." This insulation shields the theist from ever having to prove that his god directly intervenes in reality.

This amounts to the following:

Theist: Assertion of divine revelation

Atheist: "Prove it"

Theist: "God told me not to prove it."

Edited November 21, 2009 by Alone