Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Epistemology In Short

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I got asked for my philosophy on one foot. I personally never found Objectivism on one foot that useful. I thought it's too hard to understand if you don't already know what the stuff means. Philosophy is hard enough to communicate in whole books. Some people read Atlas Shrugged and think Rand is a communist or altruist. Some people read Popper and think he's a positivist or inductivist. Huge mistakes are easily possible even with long philosophical statements. I think the best solution involves back and forth communication so that miscommunication mistakes can be fixed along the way and understanding can be built up incrementally. But this requires the right attitudes and methods for talking to be very effective. And that's hard. And if people don't already have the right methods to learn and communicate well, how do you explain it to them? There's a chicken and egg problem that I don't have a great answer to. But anyway, philosophy, really short, I tried, here you go:
 
There is only one known rational theory of how knowledge is created: evolution. It answers Paley's problem. No one has ever come up with any other answer. Yet most people do not recognize evolution as a key theory in epistemology, and do not recognize that learning is an evolutionary process. They have no refutation of evolution, nor any alternative, and persist with false epistemologies. This includes Objectivism – Ayn Rand choose not to learn much about evolution.
 
Evolution is about how knowledge can be created from non-knowledge, and also how knowledge is improved. This works by a process of replication with variation and selection. In epistemology, ideas and variants are criticized and the survivors continue on in the process. This process incrementally makes progress, just like biological evolution. Step by step, flaws get eliminated and the knowledge gets better adapted and refined. This correction of errors is crucial to how knowledge is created and improved.
 
Another advantage of evolutionary processes is that they are resilient to mistakes. Many individual steps can be done badly and a good result still achieved. Biological evolution works even though many animals with advantageous genes die before other animals with inferior genes; there's a large random luck factor which does not ruin the process. This is important because of human fallibility: mistakes are common. We cannot avoid making any mistakes and should instead emphasize using methods that can deal with mistakes well. (Methods which deal with mistakes well are rational; methods which do not are irrational because they entrench mistakes long term.)
 
A key issue in epistemology is how conflicts of ideas are handled. Trying to resolve these conflicts by authority or by looking at the source of ideas is irrational. It can make mistakes persist long term. A rational approach which can quickly catch and eliminate mistakes is to judge conflicting ideas by their content. How do you judge the content of an idea? You try to find something wrong with it. You should not focus on saying why ideas are good because if they have mistakes you won't find the mistakes that way. However, finding something good about an idea is useful for criticizing other ideas which lack that good feature – it reveals a flaw in those rivals. However, in cases where a good feature of an idea does not lead to any criticism of a rival, it provides no advantage over that rival. This critical approach to evaluating ideas follows the evolutionary method.
 
This has implications for morality and politics. How people handle conflicts and disagreements are defining issues for their morality and politics. Conflicts of ideas should not be approached by authority and disagreement should not be disregarded. This implies a voluntary system with consent as a major issue. Consent implies agreement; lack of consent implies disagreement. Voluntary action implies agreement; involuntary action implies disagreement.
 
Political philosophy usually focuses too much on who should rule (or which laws should rule), instead of how to incrementally evolve our political knowledge. It tries to set up the right laws in the first place, instead of a system that is good at improving its laws. Mistakes should be expected. Disagreement should be expected. Everything should be set up to deal with this well. That implies making it easy to change rulers and laws (without violence). Also disagreement and diversity should be tolerated within the law.
 
Moral philosophy usually makes the same mistake as political philosophy. It focuses too much on deciding-declaring what is moral and immoral. There should be more concern with fallibility, and setting things up for moral knowledge to incrementally evolve. We aren't going to get all the answers right today. We should judge moral ideas more by how much they allow evolution, progress and mistake-correction, rather than by trying ot know whether a particular idea would be ideal forever. Don't try to prophesy the future and do start setting things up so we can adjust well in the unknown future.
 
Things will go wrong in epistemology, morality and politics. The focus should be on incrementally evolving things to be better over time and setting things up to be resilient to mistakes. It's better to have mistaken ideas today and good mistake-correction setup than to have superior ideas today which are hard to evolve and fragile to error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fallible conceptual consciousness requires a method of validating knowledge. It does so, because it recognizes that there is a difference between knowledge and error. Before it can discover that any particular notion is erroneous, it must know what correct, valid, unmistakable notions are. The only evolutionary process involved here is the step by step discovery of what constitutes a valid notion, discovering what is, and what is not the proper approach to validating ones ideas.

 

This process is not automatic. Even the discovery of a valid process is no assurance that others will embrace it. Pointing out a contradiction does not ensure that its holder will recognize it as a confession of an error in their thinking. As a matter of fact, if one thinks that an invalid approach to validating ideas is correct, such a notion can only serve as an obstacle to discovering the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there are indeed similarities between biological evolution and how ideas evolve, to take it to the level to say that ideas evolve in the same way and in the same sense is equivocation.

 

Better concepts for discussing how ideas evolve/change across time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is an underlying principle behind both types of evolution. they are the same thing. the underlying principle is that replication with variation and selection creates knowledge. replication with variation and selection literally happens in both cases (ideas and genes).

 

You're linking to basics. If that's where you are, then what you need to do is study the topic more, starting by reading David Deutsch's two books, and also, if you haven't, The Selfish Gene. After reading those three books you will be able to understand this far better than those wikipedia articles. For fun you could then go back and edit them with some corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is an underlying principle behind both types of evolution. they are the same thing.

They are the same thing? I didn't know ideas were developed out of genes, DNA, epigenetics, and other biological materials and phenomena!

 

If you mean they have similar principles, sure, but that's trivial - ideas change, yup. And indeed there are probably also mathematical principles involved, or principles more abstract than biology. But it's wrong to say they are the *same*. Evolution of ideas is *not* the same as evolution of *biological entities*. The fact that that ideas are cognitive while biological characteristics are noncognitive would say that there is a notable difference. Acting like they are the same is thinking in metaphors, and ignoring that therefore the means of ideas evolving will differ.  I think your post is fine to explain thoughts or to teach others "epistemology in short", but don't start saying that as an epistemological principle. That's what "Objectivism standing in one foot" is like. The point isn't to make a rock-solid case, but how to answer "what is Objectivism" to people who have never heard of Objectivism and not well-versed in philosophy.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you trolling me? i'm saying that evolution is a single principle that applies both to genes and ideas. evolution is about concepts like "replication", "variation" and "selection" which are independent of DNA. DNA is just one case. i am not saying ideas are made of DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also edited after I posted. No, I'm not trolling. You said they are the same, you didn't qualify the statement. Evolution in the biological sense depends upon its physical realization, not just replication or variation, etc. And most of all, ideas have intentionality (they are about something due to the mind's ability to represent something) while evolutionary factors do not have intentionality. If you still insist idea evolution and biological evolution are the same, I have nothing else to say. All you established at all is that the evolution you are talking about is in the same category of "long term change" as biological evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one known rational theory of how knowledge is created: evolution. It answers Paley's problem. No one has ever come up with any other answer.

A quick internet search identified Paley's Problem as the teleological argument, which is an analogy that runs as follows:

1.  The existence of a complex mechanism, such as a watch, entails a watchmaker

2.  Similarly, the existence of complex mechanisms such as ecosystems and solar systems entails a designer

 

To be clear, I'm not criticizing evolution at all.  It's a good theory.  But there is a much simpler answer to Paley's Problem: it steals the concept of volition.

 

1.  The existence of a watch entails a watchmaker- why?  Because watches aren't found in nature; they must be made.  The creation of a watch requires conscious and purposeful action.

2.  The existence of nature entails a naturemaker- why???  Because nature isn't found in nature?????

 

The second half of the argument requires us to see artificial entities, such as watches, as exactly the same as natural entities- while the first half requires us to see the difference.  It's a stolen concept because it uses teleology as a means of obliterating teleology- since purpose can only be defined by relation to purposelessness and this argument sets out to destroy the latter.

 

To see why this is wrong, imagine that you don't find a watch lying around in some forest- imagine that you find it growing on a tree, amongst hundreds of similar watch-nuts.  If you were to see that, would it still necessitate the existence of a watchmaker?

Not at all- because those watches would be natural entities, which don't require the slightest bit of intention or purpose to exist.  In the same way and for the same reasons, the existence of the Duckbilled Platypus and the Tetse Fly doesn't mean anything about the origin of the world, at all.

There is only one organism whose existence necessitates intentional creation- and that's man.

My existence necessitates the deliberate actions of my mother and father, as does yours and everyone else's on earth.  But notice that anyone's existence requires only the intentional action of themselves and a few other people; no grand architect is even remotely necessary.

 

So the correct answer to Paley's Problem is to realize WHY a watch necessitates a watchmaker and subsequently realize what makes the second half blatantly absurd.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral philosophy usually makes the same mistake as political philosophy. It focuses too much on deciding-declaring what is moral and immoral.

 

In what way do you mean? Can you give a specific example? Is there something wrong with a focus on the issue of moral vs. immoral? In what way is the focus on that issue "too much"? 

 

There should be more concern with fallibility, and setting things up for moral knowledge to incrementally evolve.

 

This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Is there some conflict between focusing on moral issues, and focusing on truth issues? Can't you do both? I don't see that they are exclusionary. The objectivist position is essentially that they are the same, anyway. Or perhaps more precisely, that they are extremely related. Morality is derived from what is true about the world, and from what sustains your life. 

 

We aren't going to get all the answers right today.

 

How do you know this? Is that statement itself true? What is your justification for knowing it is true? 

 

Second, can you explain what you are implying? Just because we don't not have ALL truth at any given time, doesn't mean we have zero truth, or can't be certain of anything. Do you think there will be a time when every human has 100 percent truth?  

 

We should judge moral ideas more by how much they allow evolution, progress and mistake-correction, rather than by trying ot know whether a particular idea would be ideal forever.

 

"We should ..."

 

That's a moral claim. What is your justification for this (or any) moral claim? Is your statement ideal forever? 

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick internet search identified Paley's Problem as the teleological argument, which is an analogy that runs as follows:

1.  The existence of a complex mechanism, such as a watch, entails a watchmaker

2.  Similarly, the existence of complex mechanisms such as ecosystems and solar systems entails a designer

 

To be clear, I'm not criticizing evolution at all.  It's a good theory.  But there is a much simpler answer to Paley's Problem: it steals the concept of volition.

 

1.  The existence of a watch entails a watchmaker- why?  Because watches aren't found in nature; they must be made.  The creation of a watch requires conscious and purposeful action.

2.  The existence of nature entails a naturemaker- why???  Because nature isn't found in nature?????

 

The second half of the argument requires us to see artificial entities, such as watches, as exactly the same as natural entities- while the first half requires us to see the difference.  It's a stolen concept because it uses teleology as a means of obliterating teleology- since purpose can only be defined by relation to purposelessness and this argument sets out to destroy the latter.

 

To see why this is wrong, imagine that you don't find a watch lying around in some forest- imagine that you find it growing on a tree, amongst hundreds of similar watch-nuts.  If you were to see that, would it still necessitate the existence of a watchmaker?

Not at all- because those watches would be natural entities, which don't require the slightest bit of intention or purpose to exist.  In the same way and for the same reasons, the existence of the Duckbilled Platypus and the Tetse Fly doesn't mean anything about the origin of the world, at all.

There is only one organism whose existence necessitates intentional creation- and that's man.

My existence necessitates the deliberate actions of my mother and father, as does yours and everyone else's on earth.  But notice that anyone's existence requires only the intentional action of themselves and a few other people; no grand architect is even remotely necessary.

 

So the correct answer to Paley's Problem is to realize WHY a watch necessitates a watchmaker and subsequently realize what makes the second half blatantly absurd.

Excellent analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got asked for my philosophy on one foot. I personally never found Objectivism on one foot that useful. I thought it's too hard to understand if you don't already know what the stuff means. Philosophy is hard enough to communicate in whole books. Some people read Atlas Shrugged and think Rand is a communist or altruist.

If you think you can explain philosophy to someone who read AS and concluded that the author was a communist, you're mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...