Objectivism and Psychology

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Muhuk:

If I see one and one and one crow, then the only rational conclusion to draw is that there are three crows. Any other conclusion would be invalid, given THAT frame of reference. But if someone were standing somewhere else they might see four crows (perhaps one was hidden from me) and rationally think that there were four crows. You have to remember that you don't know everything that other people do, and vice-versa; even though we're all looking at the same things, we all have different perspectives.

So, for example, the ancient belief that the sun circled the Earth was primarily rational- prior to our modern astronautical knowledge. It all depends on the context of your knowledge.

So you have yo be careful, in analyzing other people's opinions, to ask yourself whether the differences are ones of perspective or methodology.

When someone says IP is moral, they may not have given it as much thought as you have (just like hidden crows). When someone declares the human mind to be impotent or selfishness to be evil, however, you can be sure that no perspective on Earth could make it rational.

Sometimes it isn't easy to tell the difference, but it's always worth the effort.

[Eiuol]

Do you know off hand where I can find this comment?

http://imgur.com/N63BPFm

 

It's a bad scan, I know. Rand says here Hugo had all sorts of mixed premises. Hugo wasn't irrational, but he was wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know where I heard the line I said I heard, this doesn't capture the same thing. Maybe Peikoff said it, I don't remember.

[muhuk]

You have to remember that you don't know everything that other people do, and vice-versa; even though we're all looking at the same things, we all have different perspectives.

 

Please don't patronize me.

 

 

 

 

 

...ask yourself whether the differences are ones of perspective or methodology.

When someone says IP is moral, they may not have given it as much thought as you have (just like hidden crows). When someone declares the human mind to be impotent or selfishness to be evil, however, you can be sure that no perspective on Earth could make it rational.

 

Do you mean the person in the first example is rational? If yes, what is the difference? Why can't the person who concludes that selfishness is evil be rational from his own perspective, on account to his limited knowledge?

 

If the person in the first example is not rational, then what is your point?

[Plasmatic]

Louie, what book is that scan from?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I was not patronizing you. I am sorry if it seemed that way.

Do you mean the person in the first example is rational? If yes, what is the difference? Why can't the person who concludes that selfishness is evil be rational from his own perspective, on account to his limited knowledge?

There are only so many possible perspectives. The quickest way to tell an honest mistake from irrationality is to ask yourself what you would have to experience, in order for it to seem logical.

If I had read my last post, without having direct access to the reasoning behind it, I may have seen it as condescending, too.

Your consequent evaluation was wrong, but probably rational (which is why I am sorry).

If, however, you had declared it obscene and despicable, I would be unable to imagine any situation in which that would seem logical. That would be irrational.

---

If you have any further questions, Peikoff covered all of this in explaining the contextuality of knowledge.

I just remember how difficult that was for me.

[dream_weaver]

Louie, what book is that scan from?

Venturing a guess, it is probably from the Intro that Miss Rand wrote for an English version of Victor Hugo's "Ninety Three" 

[Eiuol]

Louie, what book is that scan from?

dream_reaver is right. The scan is from the introduction in the actual book, I think it's also in The Romantic Manifesto.

[human_murda]

Having identity means it can be identified

I don't agree with the OP but I don't think this is true. Things having identity, which cannot be identified is exactly what quantum mechanics(QM) is about.

[human_murda]

If I see one and one and one crow, then the only rational conclusion to draw is that there are three crows.

 

Again, I don't agree with the OP, but this is incorrect. If you see "one and one and one crow", the rational conclusion is that there are "at least three crows" and not that there are "three crows". You have to come up with a conclusion that would give you the least error.

 

 

 

So, for example, the ancient belief that the sun circled the Earth was primarily rational- prior to our modern astronautical knowledge.

 

Depends on how ancient it is. If the belief was post 3rd century BC, the belief would be irrational as the heliocentric model had already been proposed. So here (post 3rd century BC), we have two guesses (an Earth centric model and a Heliocentric model), which have (apparently) same observables (using equipment available to the ancient people). It does not matter that evidence distinguishing the two guesses had not existed. Since the concept of Heliocentricism existed, a claim that Heliocentricism is not a possibility or a disregard for its possibility involves an evasion and is unscientific. So the belief in an Earth centric model was irrational much before the availability of modern astronautical knowledge.

 

The same applies for the crow experiment. Since you can already conceptualize the possiblity of cases where there are more crows (as you have stated yourself), with the observable being three crows, it would be irrational to conclude that there are three crows since you have to take into account all the other cases. But suppose you were an animal and saw the three crows. Since you cannot conceptualize the other possibilities, you can conclude there are three crows. But you cannot achieve any more sophistication than this and hence the reason why animals are not rational. So seeing three crows and concluding there are three crows is what animals would do, but a rational animal, with more developed concepts would have to conclude "at least three crows". The more developed your conceptualization is, the more rational an animal you can become.

 

In general, you have to admit to the possibility of all cases (to the degree to which your conceptualization allows) which predict the same observables. This is what Ayn Rand fought for: not to give anyone a list of things they should and shouldn't do, but to make sure that the concepts (which permit a beautiful and happy life) can at least exist. Then if anybody disregards its possibility that would be evasion. So

 

When someone declares the human mind to be impotent or selfishness to be evil

that would be irrational, simply because the concept exists (thanks to Ayn Rand and anyone willing to keep the Objectivist movement alive)

that it is exactly the human mind that is the spring of all that is good.

 

Now once you admit to the possibility of the different guesses, you can concot a beautiful experiment to distinguish between them. However, a man who lives evading the consequences of their ability to conceptualize evades the possibility of the different guesses, leading to a kind of apathy to experimentation (which we kind of see in psychology today). They do not see the purpose of experimenting since they don't have any guesses they would want to distinguish by experimentation.

[human_murda]

As for the OP, your problem is with the scientific method. The question of absolute certainty is inherent in the scientific method. As for the person saying a lie, that is not a problem at all as the lie forms an additional content of the brain that you have to figure out, by whatever methods, even if it means (in the future) mapping the connection of each of the neurons to every other neuron. All the evidence just has to corraborate. The only way your arguments can be true is if your brain leaves absolutely zero evidence (like in QM) when thoughts are being processed. In every other case (i.e., other than QM), and with no exceptions (and including your brain and its thoughts) it is possible, in principle, to fully describe the reality of the existents. Your claim that non-QM entities behave in a way that cannot be identified, if true, would revolutionize physics. If you are as convinced of its truth as you claim to be, you should write a paper on it.
 

We can only guess about the contents and workings of those minds.  And such guesses are both unprovable and useless.

I say psychology is not science and you say I am anti-science. That does not follow at all. It would be more reasonable to guess that I am anti-psychology because I am pro-science. And that would be correct.

 

"pro-science"? Don't kid yourself. As for making guesses, that is exactly how the scientific method works (see my previous post for reference). You make guesses that account for observations and also take them to all their logical extentions and using experiments, determine which ones are false. The scientific method cannot tell you what is correct but only what is wrong, for certain. Scientific experiments can tell you what is likely to be true/correct. The great physicist Richard Feynman essentially says this in the following lecture:

 

 

However, the bigger problem with science isn't with the experiments themselves (except for QM) but with conceptualization (i.e., coming up with the different guesses). In daily discourse, what is scientifically more likely is what is true/fact and what is scientifically less likely is what is false. If it is scientifically likely that a person has a certain mental content, that is also what is true.

Edited May 3, 2014 by human_murda

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 If you see "one and one and one crow", the rational conclusion is that there are "at least three crows" and not that there are "three crows". You have to come up with a conclusion that would give you the least error.

True.  Thank you.

I think we have very different conceptualizations of this because I can't identify quite what you mean, in several places (especially the paragraph about experimental apathy).  But I agree with what I could understand.

 

The only way your arguments can be true is if your brain leaves absolutely zero evidence (like in QM) when thoughts are being processed.

Wouldn't his words and actions constitute "evidence" of his thought processes?  If so then I emphatically agree. 

If any homo sapien were to exist, who did not do anything (as in a coma), then nothing truly could be inferred about its mind! 

 

The scientific method cannot tell you what is correct but only what is wrong, for certain.

This is the only part which doesn't seem entirely true, to me.

And the reason is that while multiple theories may be experimentally indistinguishable (such as all of the various String theories, at present), there are still several other methods of determining their truth or falsehood.

1. All knowledge is interrelated, and must be integrated without contradiction
2. When two theories are both logically and empirically interchangeable, the simpler one is probably true [Occam's Razor]

My point being that I would consider both non-contradictory integration and elegance to be essential parts of the scientific method, along with observation, because all three are required for it to function.  Without experimentation, "science" would consist of a limitless number of non-contradictory fantasies.  Without non-contradictory integration, theories which contradicted observations would be considered valid (and the result would once again be fantasy).  Without searching for the most elegant explanations possible, any contradiction could be solved by inventing some new law of nature and hence nothing could ever actually be disproven; only forced to elaborate.

---

 

So it's a very small thing but the scientific method can actually determine truth, above and beyond non-falsehood.  And that is a large part of what makes it so powerful. 

[human_murda]

OK, Let's start with this :

 

1. All knowledge is interrelated, and must be integrated without contradiction
2. When two theories are both logically and empirically interchangeable, the simpler one is probably true [Occam's Razor]

I don't suscribe to the notion that, of multiple guesses explaining the same data, the simplest one is most likely to be correct. However, we are interested in predictions, meaning, we are interested in scientific laws. So if the simplest explaination were true, we have a scientific law, which is broader and therefore, of more value (both scientifically, and in terms of survival) . So we can prefer it over other theories. It is not that this theory is more likely to be true, but that it is of more value (if it were true), so you can focus you energy on proving it wrong, and when you can't, your confidence in the theory increases. Occam's Razor gives you an idea about how to sort theories in the order of their importance and give research priority based on this order. Scientists spend their lives coming up with as well as trying to falsify such laws. So relativity was never accepted as a scientific theory because it was the simplest theory available and therefore more likely to be correct. It is a scientific theory because it is the most valuable/general theory that has never been contradicted and verified by countless experiments (but it also isn't and cannot be proven correct).

 

 

So it's a very small thing but the scientific method can actually determine truth, above and beyond non-falsehood.  And that is a large part of what makes it so powerful. 

I am not saying there is no truth beyong non-falsehood, only that such truth is probabilistic. You can only prove one instance of a law, but not the law itself. But that doesn't mean that such laws are unscientific. It is just that such considerations are inherent in the nature of scientific laws.

 

 

Some so called "scientists" live evading the simpler laws, so they see no value in pursuing research and hence the apathy to experimentation. Maybe another Feynman video (on scientific rigour) is in order:
 

 

Again, making these scientists more moral won't be enough. Fields like psychology need people with superior minds (like Albert Einstein, Ayn Rand, etc) to come up with laws ,i.e., the most valuable (alternatively, more general/simpler) guesses (these guesses are also the non-contradictory integrations). People of superior intellect, by the ability of their mind, can come up with general laws, which, by the virtue of their broader predictions, are more valuable to human beings.

 

 

 

Wouldn't his words and actions constitute "evidence" of his thought processes?

Yes, they do. And this evidence can be meaningful only if it is used in conjunction with a law (which here is: "the person is not lying"). Assuming the person has a consciousness like everyone else (which by itself is an alternate theory, which isn't relevant here), there are two possibilities concerning the words that come out of a person's mouth :

1. He believes what he says (i.e., he is saying the truth)
2. He doesn't himself believe what he says (i.e., he is lying)

Case 1 is the simplest guess while the complexity of Case 2 can reach enormous proportions depending on how big of a conspiracy you are willing to allow the other person to cook up. Since Case 1 is so simple, it would be immensely more valuable to you (in terms of your understanding and dealings with the other person) if it were true than if it were not. Now, like in other scientific theories, you prefer Case 1 and you have to lookout for contradictions to Case 1 (either by them contradicting themselves or through their actions). If, after extended periods of time, you find no contradictions, then your guess is scientifically correct. However, if you find some contradictions, your relationship with the other person can become very strenuous. It can drive you crazy trying to guess what the other person believes as Case 2 can get pretty complicated, may be even leading to paranoia regarding everything associated with the other person depending on how malicous the original lie was.

 

 

 

If any homo sapien were to exist, who did not do anything (as in a coma), then nothing truly could be inferred about its mind! 

With present technology (and the usual obvious methods suggested previously), you may not be. But if his mind exists, he cannot be doing nothing as his brain would be metabolizing. There could also be a lot of other evidences which can be linked together.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I don't suscribe to the notion that, of multiple guesses explaining the same data, the simplest one is most likely to be correct.

True.  It's a fine distinction but I do see how it could lead to trouble; thank you.

 

I am not saying there is no truth beyong non-falsehood, only that such truth is probabilistic. You can only prove one instance of a law, but not the law itself.

So you're saying that there probably isn't any truth beyond probabilistic truth?  Saying that you can only prove one instance of a law, and not the law itself, sounds plausible. . .  But it's an epistemological law.  That makes it self-referencial; how could you prove that laws themselves can't be proven?

 

Again, making these scientists more moral won't be enough.

Why not?  I agree that fields like psychology need a mind like Newton's or Einstein's, before they can actually be sciences (and incidentally I highly enjoyed the video clip).  But if you compare Einstein to Jung, specifically in their methodology and its relation to their work, I think that the primary difference is a moral sort of difference; one of intellectual integrity.

 

Einstein refused to believe that there was anything he could not understand, if he put his mind to it.  And he was not primarily interested in the fame or the money, et cetera; above and beyond anything else, he was motivated by his own passion for truth; his intellectual integrity.

Jung, on the other hand, heard about Freud's attempts to understand the mind in thermodynamical terms (he originally called it psychodynamics).  He heard about this, decided to throw in his two cents and declared that there is this "collective unconscious" supermind which permeates the human race- without a single reference to evidence or logic.

 

So I think that you could vastly improve the sciences, by making certain scientists more moral.  The problem is that you can't; you can't change people without their permission.

Although. . .

With present technology (and the usual obvious methods suggested previously), you may not be.

Someday within our lifetimes, we're going to be asking some much more interesting questions about that.

 

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

[human_murda]

So you're saying that there probably isn't any truth beyond probabilistic truth?  Saying that you can only prove one instance of a law, and not the law itself, sounds plausible. . .  But it's an epistemological law.  That makes it self-referencial; how could you prove that laws themselves can't be proven?

If it is indeed true that laws can't be proven, then of course, you can't prove that laws can't be proven. But I don't think it is necessary to prove laws. Consider the law of gravity: has it ever been proven? No. Has that in anyway impeded the functioning of the law? No. Lack of provability does not mean there is any reasonable doubt regarding the law (you need contradictory evidence for reasonable doubt and if such evidence existed, the law has already been disproven anyway); it does not mean there is an equal expectancy for outcomes that contradict the law: what is predicted by the law (in which you have confidence) is the only thing you can expect (there is no reason to expect otherwise); it does not mean that you have to keep expecting your laws to fail (the law, by itself, is an expectancy for itself to be correct and not for it to be wrong). The only use of the unprovability assertion is when conflicting evidence is presented and you can no longer say: "but this has already been proved!". The assertion is a marginal one and does not give much of an insight by pondering over it (other than when you may have been lead to believe in the wrong assertions stated two sentences prior and you have to correct it).

 

Maybe the concept of laws is axiomatic: in order to try to disprove it, you have to first assume it is always correct (and you just need to contradict any one instance of it being correct). If it wasn't always correct, you can't disprove it as you can brush off any instance of contradiction as just one of those instances where the law just happened to be incorrect. So you have to accept (axiomatically) that a law, by its nature, is always true even though that can't be proven.

 

The "unproven" and the hypothetical "proven laws" are functionally equivalent in all respects except when conflicting evidence is provided: a person who asserts the lack of provability would accept a more complex guess that explains phenomena when presented with conflicting evidence; a person who asserts the provability of laws would state that the Universe is inconsistent (the law is both true and false at the same time). Unprovability of laws (the assertion that laws are always true even though it may not be proven) is different from statistical truth (the assertion that laws are sometimes true and sometimes false, which is the foundation for many a pronouncements based on correlation).

 

Anyhow, what is a law? It is concerned with the symmetry of the universe, i.e., something that never changes with respect to space or time. An assertion of provability of scientific laws is an assertion that laws can be shown to be held for the entireity of the Universe for the eternity of time: such knowledge is only possible to an omniscient being. Humans cannot prove the constancy of laws under all conditions (i.e., can't prove the constancy of natural laws: uniformitarianism), but nevertheless have to assume it to be true.

Edited May 13, 2014 by human_murda

[Harrison Danneskjold]

An assertion of provability of scientific laws is an assertion that laws can be shown to be held for the entireity of the Universe for the eternity of time: such knowledge is only possible to an omniscient being. Humans cannot prove the constancy of laws under all conditions (i.e., can't prove the constancy of natural laws: uniformitarianism), but nevertheless have to assume it to be true.

I think the axiom you're thinking of (which is the reasoning behind uniformitarianism) is Identity; A=A.

A=A and the Higgs Boson=the Higgs Boson, regardless of its location in space or time (pardon the pun).  And since HB=HB regardless of when, where or how we find it, to discover something new about this Higgs Boson is to discover something about all Higgs Bosons.

 

And if someone denies that this A is always A, then on what basis could they question whether all A's are always A's?  To infer anything universal from such a rejection would be to contradict yourself.

---

 

You're right that everyone must assume these things, simply in order to function.  And since we are only concerned with what human beings can or cannot claim to know, don't you think that human beings should be the ultimate standard of measurement?

[human_murda]

I think the axiom you're thinking of (which is the reasoning behind uniformitarianism) is Identity; A=A.

A=A and the Higgs Boson=the Higgs Boson, regardless of its location in space or time (pardon the pun).  And since HB=HB regardless of when, where or how we find it, to discover something new about this Higgs Boson is to discover something about all Higgs Bosons.

 

And if someone denies that this A is always A, then on what basis could they question whether all A's are always A's?  To infer anything universal from such a rejection would be to contradict yourself.

You are right. Axiom of constancy of laws is merely the axiom of identity. Scientific method helps you to come up with laws (non-contradictory identifications) and then, to distinguish between laws and pseudolaws (i.e., something which you initially misidentified as a law and can later be discovered to be wrong).

 

And since we are only concerned with what human beings can or cannot claim to know, don't you think that human beings should be the ultimate standard of measurement?

I don't know what exactly you are referring to (I agree with the first part of the statement but not the second). Could you be more precise? I would say science/reality is the ultimate standard of meaurement. One reason is, as Ayn Rand said, "before it [consciousness] could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something", i.e., existence of an objective reality precedes consciousness. So, before human beings can be identified as standards of measurement you should first discover it using other standards in reality. Wouldn't setting human beings as the ultimate standard of measurement be circular? The reason I maintain this hierarchy is because any mystic can claim that they have had supernatural revelations otherwise and, since human beings are the ultimate standard of measurement, no one can challenge them. I think I get what you are trying to say (i.e., we should only be concerned with what humans can know), but "human beings as the ultimate standard of measurement" has a lot of other connotations: Primacy of Consciousness being one of them. The problem here is just imprecise language. Can you define precisely what you mean by saying "human beings should be the ultimate standard of measurement"?

Edited May 24, 2014 by human_murda

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Can you define precisely what you mean by saying "human beings should be the ultimate standard of measurement"?

Certainly. 

Since "truth" and "falsehood" refer only to the contents and functions of a human mind, the standards which distinguish between them should stem from the nature of such minds.  "The human mind" in this instance should mean (and I meant it to, but probably should have specified) "reality as apprehended by the human mind".