Errors of Analysis and Explanation

[StrictlyLogical]

I'm noticing recurring errors in philosophical analysis and explanation (primarily non-Objectivist) which looks like something more general (an integration of) regarding the following types of error: 

 

circular reasoning

begging the question

starting with a contradiction

unintentionally invoking non-existence, nothing, or the meaningless

 

when an area of intense "intuitive difficulty" is encountered.

 

Is there a single philosophical concept which subsumes these?

 

 

 

I see many examples of dealing with things like a finite or infinite universe in time or space, what created the universe, what explains things like time, causality, space, volume.  In many cases either implicit contradictions exist, or the premises are loaded with the conclusion, and in some cases, reasoning attempts to step outside of the universe to explain it, or get underneath identity, or tries for example to use a property as a basis for explaining the property etc.

 

 

 

 

[Plasmatic]

What does "intuitive difficulty" mean?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Begging the question is essentially circular reasoning with a few of the premises left implicit.  And neither is always necessarily wrong- sometimes you have to assume certain things, like axioms.

The problem with both is not that they assume something without basis, but that they ignore any alternative.  For instance:

There's nothing wrong with assuming that you exist, even though some *sophists* might call it question-begging, because there is no other way for you to logically be.  There is something wrong with assuming that altruism is good because there is another valid alternative.

 

So both question-begging and circularity, I think, are actually a certain variety of context-dropping.

 

Reification of the zero (which is what it's called when someone invokes nothingness in order to prove something) is a form of floating abstraction; it's caused by a failure to hold onto the meaning of a word while using it.

So, for instance:

 

"Light travels at C

Wherever light travels, by definition, there had previously been darkness

Therefore darkness travels at greater than C"

 

That's reification of zero.  The error is in using "darkness" to mean an actual existent, with the same properties as "light", instead of (properly) referring to nothing more than not-light.

---

 

I think what you're looking for is "context-dropping" in general.

[A is A]

I'm noticing recurring errors in philosophical analysis and explanation (primarily non-Objectivist) which looks like something more general (an integration of) regarding the following types of error: 

 

circular reasoning

begging the question

starting with a contradiction

unintentionally invoking non-existence, nothing, or the meaningless

 

when an area of intense "intuitive difficulty" is encountered.

 

Is there a single philosophical concept which subsumes these?

Not a single concept, but a term: Logical fallacy.

 

 

 

I see many examples of dealing with things like a finite or infinite universe in time or space, what created the universe, what explains things like time, causality, space, volume.  In many cases either implicit contradictions exist, or the premises are loaded with the conclusion, and in some cases, reasoning attempts to step outside of the universe to explain it, or get underneath identity, or tries for example to use a property as a basis for explaining the property etc.

[StrictlyLogical]

Like:

 

Intuitively everyday things are finite (spatially) but there is always more space beyond outside of them.  This can lead to difficulty in talking about whether the universe ends (it has to because everything does but then again it cannot because there is always more space...)

 

Intuitively everything has a cause or is finite in time, again applying these intuitions to the universe has lead to problems... what was before time, what causes causality .. etc.

 

Intuitively all (solid) everyday things have weight, volume, what is the explanation for weight or volume? (must be something with weight or volume because nothing has no weight and no volume... but that forms no explanation for weight or volume)

 

What is identity can we get behind it (everything aught to be able to be gotten behind/under i.e. explained)? What is outside the universe? What makes something necessary instead of contingent?  etc.

 

 

I am not saying these errors are excusable, just trying to unify their origin (if there is something common).

[Plasmatic]

Could you help me with why you use the word "intuitively". I don't know what it means. The only valid use I have seen is relating to the subconscious impressions that one has yet to conceptualize consciously. In that case it is not something one ought to be employing in technical analysis of something.

You ought to analyze /reduce this concept because I can see how it might influence some of the questions your asking.

If something is a primary it has no antecedent cause. In this sense, asking for a cause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the Primacy of Existence.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Not only are all of those very close to axiomatic, if not axioms themselves, but all are also attempts to "prove existence by means of nonexistence".

Beyond is a spatial comparison; "beyond space itself" is equivalent to "a place without location".  "Before time itself" means "in a timeless time", "the cause of causality" and the "nature of identity" would both be attempts to logically justify logic.

They're all contradictions because each of them applies some conceptual standard (which compares and organizes other concepts beneath it) to itself.

 

Interestingly, asking whether "reality is an illusion" would literally be trying to prove existence by nonexistence, by the same method.

 

You cannot specify the location of space itself, the duration of time itself or the nature of identity itself, for the same reason that a ruler cannot measure itself.

If that's what you meant by circularity then it is a form of context-dropping, but additionally something else (possibly a few things) which I can't identify yet.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

" When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero."

-Ayn Rand, from Galt's Speech

Seems applicable.

And questioning an axiom necessarily involves circularity and the reification of zero, in order to even concieve of its negation.

---

The "intuitive" examples you've given sofar apply to everything that exists and are irreducible; "space" cannot be defined except ostensibly or tautologically, cannot be reduced into any other concepts (except perhaps entity or identity), etc.

Does that apply to everything you're referring to? If so then "intuitive" is being used to mean "axiomatic" and this thread just got very interesting.

[tadmjones]

I think these are problems of distinguishing between metaphysical / epistemologic, yes?

[StrictlyLogical]

Wonderful answers all.

 

What I am noticing (I've been listening to a history of philosophy) is that there seems to be a pattern to why/how certain logical fallacies have been committed.  We here all know many of the errors came from evasion or a strong "wish" motivating the mistakes, but often they have originated from a sort of blindness.

 

HD by identifying "axiomatic" as the focus I think we would be straying too much from the problem... here the problem is not reality or logic but human misuse, misunderstanding... but you do have a point that the particular "critical limit" of the kinds of human error I have given are... foundational or axiomatic.

[Plasmatic]

Dont forget that all errors boil down to contradictions. Likewise, all truths are tautological.....

[tadmjones]

...and gauged by the same measure

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm noticing recurring errors in philosophical analysis and explanation (primarily non-Objectivist) which looks like something more general (an integration of) regarding the following types of error: 

 

circular reasoning

begging the question

starting with a contradiction

unintentionally invoking non-existence, nothing, or the meaningless

 

when an area of intense "intuitive difficulty" is encountered.

 

Is there a single philosophical concept which subsumes these?

 

We here all know many of the errors came from evasion or a strong "wish" motivating the mistakes, but often they have originated from a sort of blindness.

 

HD by identifying "axiomatic" as the focus I think we would be straying too much from the problem... here the problem is not reality or logic but human misuse, misunderstanding... but you do have a point that the particular "critical limit" of the kinds of human error I have given are... foundational or axiomatic.

The analysis of conditions which are universally present in human experience poses severe intuitive difficulty, because they lack a proper basis for comparison.

 

In order to form a valid concept, one needs to focus on a certain entity or attribute which is both similar to certain things, and different from others; a genus and differentia.  That's how we form and organize a valid abstraction.

Axioms (and concepts you've described as "intuitively difficult") are extremely difficult to form and properly grasp, because they apply to every single thing.

For instance, most people on this forum know that "existence exists" but very few could probably tell you what it really means to exist.  It's hard because literally every thing in the universe exists; there is nothing in reality which you can compare existence to, at all.

 

This doesn't mean that nothing universal can actually be analyzed; the law of gravity applies to every experience any human being had had, prior to Newton, and he was still able to make some astonishingly accurate inferences about its nature.  But notice how he did that: by realizing that while it was universally present, he could observe and measure differences in its strength between different objects- i.e. he found a valid differentia against which he could compare it.

---

 

So if not precisely axiomatic, the commonality seems to be "universal subjects" and their very universality poses this difficulty.  The trick to accurately thinking about them is to retain a strict meaning for the concept and try to see if it is actually universal, everywhere and at all times.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I think you'll find the concept of Tawhid pertinent and enlightening, if you're in the mood for some research.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid

 

It's a Muslim principle which translates to something along the lines of "singularity" or "one-ness" which explicitly states that Alleh cannot be compared to anything we puny mortals have ever experienced, nor can his different attributes be distinguished from each other.

If you've read the ITOE you'll recognize it as a specific denial and prohibition against the very possibility of logically analyzing God.

 

I think you'll find it relevant as a specific description of this "intuitive difficulty" and it's interesting to me because it's the only case I know of in which such difficulty has been specifically and deliberately manufactured.

[StrictlyLogical]

Dont forget that all errors boil down to contradictions. Likewise, all truths are tautological.....

 

Certainly a contradiction is an indication of an error, but an error may exist absent any contradiction, (here there is simply ignorance).  Here I am assuming reality is the standard of truth and not a closed system of mere ideas and concepts.

[Plasmatic]

Have you read Dr. Peikoffs article on the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy? Given correspondence between subject and object, a false statement, ignorance or not, fails to correspond/contradicts reality. This shows up in the way we use language.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

Have you read Dr. Peikoffs article on the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy? Given correspondence between subject and object, a false statement, ignorance or not, fails to correspond/contradicts reality. This shows up in the way we use language.

 

True.  In fact this is how I use the term when comparing abstractions to reality...

 

When I read the statement error boils down to contradiction... I interpreted it as "errors are evidenced by contradiction".  If we use the term in this way then in fact "error" IS, by definition, a contradiction with reality.

[Plasmatic]

Harrison said:

"The analysis of conditions which are universally present in human experience poses severe intuitive difficulty, because they lack a proper basis for comparison......For instance, most people on this forum know that "existence exists" but very few could probably tell you what it really means to exist. It's hard because literally every thing in the universe exists; there is nothing in reality which you can compare existence to, at all."

Ms. Rand addressed this in ITOE:

"Prof. B: In connection with this, would there be

any CCD behind attribute, action, relation?

AR: Well yes, in regard to everything based on or

derived from the concept "entity," the CCD is that

they all pertain to entities.

Prof. B: But there would be no CCD for the whole

group of them, including entity. This is Aristotle's

point about the different categories: there would be

no CCD of "being" which is behind entity, attribute,

action, etc.

AR: No.

Prof. E: There is nothing in common between

existence and nonexistence on the basis of which

you would differentiate existence from nonexistence.

AR: No.

Prof. G: May I ask, what was that earlier

discussion about existence that you referred to?

Prof. E: I had asked the question, "What do you

distinguish existence from, since there is nothing

else?" And Miss Rand said, "Look at something. Now

close your eyes. That is what you are distinguishing

it from." And that made it perfectly clear. It doesn't

imply, of course, that there is a metaphysical zero

which comes into existence when you close your

eyes."

Harrison said:

"This doesn't mean that nothing universal can actually be analyzed"

I'd be careful here. "Analysis", is precisely what one cannot do with axiomatic concepts. To analyze is to reduce to its lowest foundation. There is nothing beneath the widest abstraction.

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a

primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed,

i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component

parts. "

ITOE

We can and do differentiate existence in the way Ms. Rand described above. We cannot, however, analyze existence.

Be careful equating axiomatic concepts with "universal". I know you said, "everywhere at all times" though.

Harrison said:

"I think you'll find the concept of Tawhid pertinent and enlightening, if you're in the mood for some research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid

It's a Muslim principle which translates to something along the lines of "singularity" or "one-ness" which explicitly states that Alleh cannot be compared to anything we puny mortals have ever experienced, nor can his different attributes be distinguished from each other.

If you've read the ITOE you'll recognize it as a specific denial and prohibition against the very possibility of logically analyzing God."

In fact the mystical doctrine your pointing at is the opposite of what Oism means by axiomatic. We have to abstract existence precisely because we get, "out of many, one". Multiplicity is axiomatic not "oneness". We abstract entities from a background of other entities we are differentiating from. Oneness is an abstraction for Oism.

Oneness in the religious myths is a metaphysical claim of the primeval deity. In fact the muslims share this with several other mythologies, most notably the jewish mythology, whom Muhammad synecretized islam with. The concept of "holiness" to the jews actually is the attribution of the deities transcendent otherness. This is why they are iconoclasts. No image can contain or represent that which is transcendent. Thats why the Christian mythology is so offensive to jews. They claim that Jesus was the "express image", or god in the flesh.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

SL:

"Intuitively everything has a cause or is finite in time, again applying these intuitions to the universe has lead to problems... what was before time, what causes causality .. etc."

Its not true that "everything has a cause".

"The main purpose of this chapter is

to unravel systematically the implications of

"Existence exists."

Now let me reiterate that the causal link relates an

entity and its action. The law of causality does not

state that every entity has a cause. Some of the

things commonly referred to as "entities" do not

come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g.,

the universe as a whole.....

The law of causality states that entities are the

cause of actions—not that every entity, of whatever

sort, has a cause, but that every action does; and not

that the cause of action is action, but that the cause of action

is entities."

OPAR.

Notice "entities" is in quotes. Technically the universe is not an entity at all, but the concept used to refer to all the particulars that exist.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Plasmatic

[StrictlyLogical]

SL:

"Intuitively everything has a cause or is finite in time, again applying these intuitions to the universe has lead to problems... what was before time, what causes causality .. etc."

Its not true that "everything has a cause".

"The main purpose of this chapter is

to unravel systematically the implications of

"Existence exists."

Now let me reiterate that the causal link relates an

entity and its action. The law of causality does not

state that every entity has a cause. Some of the

things commonly referred to as "entities" do not

come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g.,

the universe as a whole.....

The law of causality states that entities are the

cause of actions—not that every entity, of whatever

sort, has a cause, but that every action does; and not

that the cause of action is action, but that the cause of action

is entities."

OPAR.

Notice "entities" is in quotes. Technically the universe is not an entity at all, but the concept used to refer to all the particulars that exist.

 

 

I absolutely agree.  The intuitive errors are not errors I attribute to myself with my current knowledge, but I am aware of them - listening to my history of philosophy - nonetheless.  

 

I especially like your reminder about the universe not being an entity but a reference to every particular.  I had an argument about "empty space" or a "vacuum" which annoyed me to no end, due to (which I was not completely aware of at the time) the person's looking at the universe as a thing itself having an extension around and throughout all of "space" and thus somehow "filling" voids (conceptually?... he borders on but does wholly succumb to rationalism).  The old "there is no nothing" argument was used but in the context it was inapplicable... I was very misunderstood.  He thought my concept of there being no particular having a property of between-ness or inside-ness in relation to a particular set of particulars ( a container or arrangement for example), or alternatively the momentary absence of a value of spatial relationship - inbetween-ness or inside-ness  or position, of all particulars is equivalent to there being no particulars "being" inbetween, inside, or at that position, in the container or arrangement and hence, in a sense, is what "empty space" means.  That discussion is for another thread and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on a void "between" particulars.

Edited November 1, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Plasmatic: Good point about universality; thank you.

I've been reading the Logical Leap and realized that the reference to Newton actually demonstrated how he realized that gravity is NOT axiomatic, except from an earthbound perspective.

The law of U. Gravitation is exactly what you can't get from an actual axiom.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm not sure what your point about Tawhid is, though.

[StrictlyLogical]

Here is a logical fallacy:

 

Intro

 

That natural system when "working" has the capacity for choice and functions (is conscious) in such a way to make choices, but when its functioning (not its substance or matter) is caused to stop (consciousness ceases) by rearrangement of that substance (through squashing or scrambling) the natural system no longer has that capacity.

 

Something cries out for explanation for on the one hand the system when functioning and conscious and arranged as so, it chooses, and on the other hand the system when not functioning as so (consciousness ceased) because of its rearrangement it cannot choose.  What at the least must change to cause this transition, what constitutes the functioning or arrangement giving rise to choice?

 

 

Fallacy

 

I want to determine what gives rise to, causes, and/or an explanation for "choice" in a natural system.

 

I see several possibilities which are combinations of various functions processes, each a functionally atomic unit reflecting the behaviour of the possible subparts which make up the system: some are deterministic, some probabilistic (perhaps objectively so (QM)).  I then notice that each of these "functionally atomic units" whose arrangement I am trying to evaluate as to whether they can make up together the thing we know as choice has no inherent "choosiness", so I reject all combinations thereof.  I conclude that the only explanation of choice must include at least one atomic functional unit which is "choosy"

 

I conclude that choice, since it cannot metaphysically be made of a combination of non-choosy things, must either simply not exist OR must be created with at least one functionally atomic unit which is choosy, and since nothing physically known is choosy, I conclude either "choice is ACTUALLY mystical and supernatural" or there is a choosy teleological "functionally atomic" phenomenon in nature which we have yet to discover. 

 

 

 

Where is/are the logical fallacy/fallacies?

 

 

Can one, according to Objectivism, require that "choice" be explained in part by constituents functioning in a manner which itself amounts to "choice"?

Edited November 6, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[dream_weaver]

Chet Fleming wrote a book entitled "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive..."

Through a process of hooking machines up to replace the functions of vital organs, when you are left with a brain in a vat, so to speak, are you just beginning to do your isolation of the "choosy causal agent"?

 

It may have been Harry Binswanger's peice on "Perception" making a case of using electrical probes applied to different areas of the brain, the perceptions generated are still causal.

 

Even for you to "conclude" that choice . . . must either simply not exist, or... rests on the axiomatic status of choice in order to perform the conclusion or decision making process. Every conclusion we draw is subject to "correct" or "incorrect", "right" or "wrong". The recognition of alternatives is the recognition of choices.

 

Consciousness entails life, though life need not always be conscious (plants for example.)

Choice entails conceptual conscious, though a conceptual consciousness need not recognise choice in the matter.

 

To approach it in accordance with Objectivism, would have to be to identify it "Choice: What is it? What, by the nature of what it is, does it do?", recognising that even to do this requires choice.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

SL: It's not a formal fallacy; your conclusion logically follows from the premises. But your conclusion leads directly to mysticism; check your definition of "choice".

You've divided the possibilities into "choosy" or "nonchoosy" elements; things that are determined to act in specific ways (consequence Y of conditions X) and things which aren't. Which category applies to everything in the known universe?

Think like Newton. Don't theorize about things which haven't been observed or logically follow from observation; reapply the measurements you've previously omitted.

What differences are abstracted from the concept of "determinism, in general"? Causally, what does sugar have in common with skin cancer, for instance?