My psychology professor is promoting the analytic/synthetic dichotomy

[Black Wolf]

My psych professor talked about different hypotheses (Existential, universal, analytic, synthetic) hypotheses. The moment she started talking about an "analytic" hypothesis, I had a feeling synthetic hypothesis was coming up. It was almost exactly like Kant's dichotomy. Analytic statements = inherently true, whereas synthetic statements are not.

The question I have is: Is there any validity in learning about the distinction between an "analytic" statement and a "synthetic" statement? Is it proper to identify an "analytic" statement as something that can't possibly be false by definition, and a "synthetic" statement as the opposite? Was Ayn Rand's only objection to the dichotomy the assumption that "synthetic' statements can't be true?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Black Wolf

[dream_weaver]

The question I have is: Is there any validity in learning about the distinction between an "analytic" statement and a "synthetic" statement? Is it proper to identify an "analytic" statement as something that can't possibly be false by definition, and a "synthetic" statement as the opposite? Was Ayn Rand's only objection to the dichotomy the assumption that "synthetic' statements can't be true?

Peikoff wrote a supplimental section included in the second edition of ITOE on the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Understanding this dichotomy can be benificial when confronted with it. The analytic statement is "true" because it is definitional, not because of the objectively relationship to the identified referents in reality. This gives rise to the synthetic side of the coin.

A bachelor cannot be a married man, for this would be definitionally false. To posit that a bachelor could fly by flapping his arms might be considered synthetically "true" since the definition does not omit this specifically. Unfortunately many examples can be much more subtle and increase the difficulty in identifying it.

Ayn Rand considered linguistic analysis a form of this in ITOE where she stated,

"The cognitive function of concepts was undercut by a series of grotesque devices—such, for instance, as the "analytic-synthetic" dichotomy which, by a route of tortuous circumlocutions and equivocations, leads to the dogma that a "necessarily" true proposition cannot be factual, and a factual proposition cannot be "necessarily" true."

[Alfred Centauri]

If I understand the alleged analytic/synthetic distinction correctly, the truth value of an "analytic" proposition depends only on the "meaning" of the concepts, i.e., "[the] predicate concept is contained in its subject concept". So, for example, the proposition "All bachelors are unmarried" is a so-called analytic proposition since "bachelor" is defined as an unmarried male. It is said that the negation of a true analytic proposition results in a contradiction, i.e., "all unmarried males are married" and so, true analytic propositions are necessarily true.

On the other hand, the truth value of the alleged "synthetic" proposition "All bachelors are less than 8 feet tall" does not depend on the "meaning" of the concepts, i.e., the definition of the concept "bachelor" does not involve height. Thus, it is said that a synthetic proposition, if true, is not necessarily true, i.e., the negation of a true synthetic proposition is not a contradiction.

According to those that accept the analytic/synthetic distinction, the "meaning" of a concept is the concept's definition.

However, according to Objectivism, "The meaning of a concept consists of the units—the existents—which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units" and so the height of unmarried males is contained in the meaning of the concept "bachelor". The definition of a concept may change - it may become more refined - as new discoveries occur but the meaning of a concept doesn't change, the same units are referred to.

Now, consider the case that there is (or was or will be) a bachelor that is greater than 8 feet tall. According to Objectivism, the alleged synthetic proposition "All bachelors are less than 8 feet tall" becomes "All unmarried males including that one there that is greater than 8 feet tall are less than 8 feet tall" which is indeed a contradiction, i.e., it is a necessarily false proposition.

I'd like to write more but I'm pressed for time so this will have to do for now.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Alfred Centauri

[Grames]

The question I have is: Is there any validity in learning about the distinction between an "analytic" statement and a "synthetic" statement?

Is it proper to identify an "analytic" statement as something that can't possibly be false by definition, and a "synthetic" statement as the opposite? Was Ayn Rand's only objection to the dichotomy the assumption that "synthetic' statements can't be true?

There is validity in knowing how to pass your professor's exams, and in knowing why not to make this particular mistake when on your own.

The analytic-synthetic dichotomy corrupts the ideas of logical necessity (which is the need to not contradict) and truth as correspondence.

Ayn Rand rejects the idea of analytic statements that must be true because the idea of substituting a word with other words from a definition in infinite regress without ever touching on a perceptual non-verbal justification is the primacy of consciousness premise in action.