Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why cannot the future be random? (or: invalidating axioms?)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Iudicious said:

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality.

It is exactly philosophy that "formalizes induction" and tells you what evidence is! When a physicist says particles "pop in and out of existence" I don't need to know any physics to laugh at him in ridicule. Whats more is the fact that the smart special science practitioners actually spend alot of time debating the philosophical merits of the popular theories that the rest of their peers either take for granted or take as only pragmatic metaphors that describe the appearances.

You are confessing your second handedness to men who largely have no idea what is actually involved in their everyday use of cognition and language.

Louie said:

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice

Or he's just embracing contradiction.... Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy.

"Derived from" gives the impression that philosophy is a somewhat independent science that came up with ideas about reality and rationality, that then lead to the scientific method. Perhaps you do not mean it that way, and perhaps its nit-picking, but "derived from" does have that connotation.

 

Most learning and integration happens in the other direction: science comes up with the nuts and bolts approaches that constitute the "scientific method" without having a name for it; then, people (like Bacon) who focus on the methodology of science formalize the method by generalizing across attempts by various scientists; finally, philosophy takes the input from natural science, as well as inputs from history and the humanities, and formalizes more general and widely-applicable formulations (e.g. about the efficacy of reason, or the nature of causation). 

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn't exist.

Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven?

 

Let us say that some "scientists" do "prove" that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?

 

Science journalism is bad. 

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I'd take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I'm not infallible. I've proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I'd have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality. 

 

Do I think that's likely to happen? Not really. But the principle is important here: if the evidence of reality starts to pile up that something about my philosophy is wrong, I'm going to have a problem. Either I'm insane, or my philosophy is wrong. You need to understand what I actually said about science: science is a formalized process of induction. That means that it's entirely based on the evidence of reality. Nothing more, nothing less. If science says that some part of my philosophy is wrong, by all rights the philosophy that I hold should agree - because my philosophy holds that reality is the final arbiter in all things. Not what I want to believe. Not what I wish was true. Reality. Do you disagree with this assessment? If you do not consult reality as the final arbiter in all things... who do you consult? God?

 

 

I'm bad at this quoting thing, so these next few responses are with regards to Nicky:

 

 

 

Is that a rejection of free will, or are you just using imprecise language when you claim to have "no choice"?

 

I'm using precise language but leaving out what I figured to be a given. I have no choice but to believe in science, assuming that I believe in logic and reality. Science is formalized induction. If I don't believe in science, than I don't believe in induction. If I don't believe in induction... well then, what can I believe in?

 

 

 

Why is empirical evidence valid?

 

To me, I treat empirical evidence as valid because that is my philosophy. Philosophically, empirical evidence is valid because there is no other kind of evidence with regards to reality. I can deduce a few things without any regards to reality (there is something which exists, I am a thing which exists, a thing is a thing, et cetera) but anything else requires consulting with reality, and empirical evidence is the only means by which to do that. 

 

I am confident that no science will ever disprove free will, as a result of what I have deduced logically. But if the empirical evidence of reality firmly, unquestionably, tells me that I do not have free will, I must at least re-examine what I have deduced. Because arriving at such evidence means one of two things: either I've gone insane and cannot reliably induce anything from reality anymore, or I made an error in my deductions.

 

 

 

There are many ways, as evidenced by all the people who do believe in things that don't rely on induction. If you want the specifics, ask a priest, he will tell you exactly how to go about it. 

 

It seems here you agree with me. Yes, I can believe something without ever relying on induction or consulting reality. But I can't do so reliably. I can't have any good reason for doing so. I can't truly, rationally, know anything if I base my beliefs on something other than reality.

 

 

 

That's your personal philosophy (very similar to some of Ayn Rand's philosophy, though not as eloquently worded), and it's just one particular philosophy among many. Not even the most established one. What makes it objectively right?

 

What makes what objectively right? Are you asking me what makes my philosophy that I must consult with reality (et cetera, et cetera) objectively right? I don't know, you tell me. I'm not interested in explaining it because it seems to me that, based on your responses, it should be blatantly clear to you. How do you suppose that I should discern what is objectively right if I can't believe that consulting reality is objectively right? What do you suppose I should consult instead? Should I give up induction altogether, perhaps?

 

 

 

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice. The other people asking you questions seem to think you're denying philosophy is important to science. You're not doing that, though. I think science and philosophy are inseparable for the most part making all scientific claims to some extent philosophical. But it's important to remember that Objectivism approaches all knowledge, even philosophy, in a scientific way, i.e. with observation, induction, and logic as all valid methods. Think of it this way. To call a scientist a bad philosopher is to just say the scientist undermines his or her ability to do science in the first place. That's why it is considered a philosophical error rather than strictly a scientific one.

 

I think you're mostly spot on with your interpretation.

 

I would say that, at best, science is an extension of philosophy. No objective examination of reality can extend from anywhere but philosophy, which necessarily includes science. 

 

My issue is that it's entirely possible to arrive at science with a philosophy different from Objectivism. Induction does not exist just in Objectivism. A person can have a completely different set of views from me or you, and still be a fantastic scientist, better even than you or I could ever be perhaps. So criticizing them for "bad philosophy" misses the point entirely. You can't throw out their scientific evidence on account of it disagreeing with your philosophy. Can philosophy perhaps flavor our views of the evidence? Sure. But in the end, reality is the final arbiter of rightness, and if your philosophy ends up disagreeing with reality... well, the old cliche works here: if you believe that you can fly, go jump off a building and see if gravity agrees. Science is the only means that I have of objectively collecting and understanding the evidence of reality through induction. If it tells me that my philosophy is wrong... perhaps I need to take at least a few minutes to examine my philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I'd take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I'm not infallible. I've proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I'd have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality. 

If you understand that the concept of "proof" presupposes free will, then there is no need to take any such claim seriously, not even for a moment. Even the concept of  "infallibility" presupposes free will. Free will is axiomatic, it can only be validated, not proven. It has to be relied upon, even in an attempt to deny it. The very act of disagreement on such a point, presuppose that the individuals involved in such a dispute can be persuaded to volitionally alter their point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you understand that the concept of "proof" presupposes free will, then there is no need to take any such claim seriously, not even for a moment. Even the concept of  "infallibility" presupposes free will. Free will is axiomatic, it can only be validated, not proven. It has to be relied upon, even in an attempt to deny it. The very act of disagreement on such a point, presuppose that the individuals involved in such a dispute can be persuaded to volitionally alter their point of view.

 

Right, and that's something that you arrived at through a deductive line of reasoning. You were not born with that knowledge in your head. You do not know it inherently. No God has given that knowledge to you through divine will. You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off.

 

I'm not saying that one cannot arrive at an intuition about reality through philosophy. I'm not saying that philosophy cannot guide your reasoning. What I am saying is that science is formalized induction, that its evidence and its theories come from reality. ASSUMING that we had incontrovertible evidence of free will not existing - which it is highly questionable whether such a thing could exist - one would be forced to reconsider one's deductive abilities, or else assume that reality is lying to you and you've actually gone insane and can't discern what is and is not reality. These are your only two options. If the evidence is truly incontrovertible, then your perception of reality is off and your inductive abilities cannot be relied upon... or your deductive abilities were wrong. Unless you suppose a third sort of reasoning that could be involved here that is neither deductive nor inductive, I don't see any other option.

 

 

Now, if I was personally given evidence that free will does not exist, I'd consider it highly suspect. In science, there's almost nothing that can be said to be true with 100% certainty. Induction can always fail, and it's impossible to prove that it hasn't failed. With induction, unlike deduction, it's only possible to prove that it's astronomically unlikely for your conclusion to be wrong. Given a scenario where I was shown proof that free will doesn't exist obtained through science, I'd likely spend the rest of my days trying to find counter evidence - because reality can't be wrong, but the deductive line of reasoning leading me to believe in free will is pretty solid, so my natural assumption would be that either the evidence was obtained falsely or that there must be some way to find a new conclusion. But unless it was immediately obvious that one of those two things had happened, I wouldn't simply say "oh that's bad philosophy" and shrug it off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that if your initial posts were of this kind I would have taken the time to respond in detail...

 

ludicious said:

 

 

What I am saying is that science is formalized induction, that its evidence and its theories come from reality.

 

The special sciences are applying what the science of philosophy informs them. Induction and deduction are involved in reasoning on any type of conclusion.

 

ludicious said: 

 

 

You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off.

 

 

The axioms aren't deduced and they fit into ALL contexts, that's what it means to be axiomatic. Understanding this philosophical fact of reality is what enables one to reject the possibility of the axioms being wrong with certainty, precisely because one knows what the speaker means!

 

If you understood how to determine what evidence and proof and possibility mean, then you would understand that any person, special science or otherwise, who claims to reject the facts that they presuppose is irrevocably speaking contradiction.  

 

The only difference between general truths and specialized truths is the accessibility of the facts that give rise to them. Not induction here, deduction over there, facts here fantasy/intuition there. Both philosophers and physicist can err and when they do it is always a epistemological error, a failure to apply the right method of attaining knowledge! 

 

I recommend you discover what philosophy means because until you do you will be contradicting yourself and will entertain the contradictions of others....

 

 

ludicious said:

 

 

Now, if I was personally given evidence that free will does not exist, I'd consider it highly suspect. In science, there's almost nothing that can be said to be true with 100% certainty.

 

Is bad philosophy and this view of science is an epistemological error....

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

First, let me say that if your initial posts were of this kind I would have taken the time to respond in detail...

 

Sorry, but what you mean to say is "if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to my philosophy, I would have taken the time to respond in detail." Say what you mean.

 

Unlike any of the other people who responded to me, your first responses said absolutely nothing worth even considering, other than just "you're wrong". Which is why I didn't consider them.

 

 

 

The special sciences are applying what the science of philosophy informs them. Induction and deduction are involved in reasoning on any type of conclusion.

I agree, because that's another way of saying what I already said.

 

 

 

 

The axioms aren't deduced and they fit into ALL contexts, that's what it means to be axiomatic. 

 

I understand that axioms aren't provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them. Here's the thing: you are not born inherently knowing about any axiom. Yes, an axiom is implied by knowing anything - but this is a fact that has to be deduced from working with the facts of reality. It is not something anyone knows inherently, which means some process of thought must lead to it. Which leads back to what I was already saying before:

 

If an axiom is solidly, incontrovertibly, contradicted by the evidence of reality, you have only two recourses: either admit that your induction process is flawed and cannot be relied on, or admit that your deduction of the axiom/the thought process leading you to the axiom is wrong.

 

There are no other options here.

 

 

 

If you understood how to determine what evidence and proof and possibility mean, then you would understand that any person, special science or otherwise, who claims to reject the facts that they presuppose is irrevocably speaking contradiction.  

 

Again with you talking about what I do or do not understand. Don't assume to know what I do or do not know. It's rude, and it makes you seem like an ass.

 

What you just said is precisely what led me to my conclusion. A contradiction of free will provided by incontrovertible evidence from reality would imply a contradiction. That contradiction can lie in one of two places: if there is truly no way around the evidence, no way to reject it otherwise, then you must assume that either your ability to induce anything from reality is flawed, hence producing the contradiction by giving you false evidence from reality, or that your original deduction of the axioms is wrong. 

 

I'm saying that I would at least consider the facts of reality simply because either one of those two things is a pretty big leap. Seeing as we're dealing with science here, and not everyone has to be an Objectivist to be a scientist, it's not exactly rational to approach this from a purely philosophical standpoint when the scientific evidence is hardly incontrovertible, as is the original case presented to me. If the evidence is not incontrovertible, there's no reason it can't be rejected from a scientific viewpoint - i.e. a viewpoint not based on deductive processes that most of the world disagrees with Objectivism on. 

 

If you want to offhandedly reject scientific evidence on a philosophical basis, go ahead.

 

Just don't be upset when the Christians continue offhandedly rejecting scientific theories, like evolution, because it contradicts their philosophy.

 

Pragmatically, the way that I propose we handle such evidence works a whole lot better.

 

 

 

I recommend you discover what philosophy means because until you do you will be contradicting yourself and will entertain the contradictions of others....

 

I recommend you stop condescendingly assuming what I do or do not know.

 

 

 

Is bad philosophy and this view of science is an epistemological error....

 

Once again saying something not worth considering. Do you have something more to say about this, or are you just going to say "you're wrong, epistemologically" and leave it at that?

 

I'll humor you anyways. In science, we don't treat something as 100% certain when based off of evidence of reality. The reason for this is that when you induce a fact, you do so using a limited amount of evidence. The full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you. But if something is true in enough cases, you can induce that it is a general truth. That does not mean that something can't come along later that contradicts it. You can work under the assumption that solidly backed theories are indeed true - but if something comes along that really, truly contradicts those theories, they are not off the table for reconsideration. The evidence just needs to be very strong before their wrongness would be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes what objectively right? Are you asking me what makes my philosophy that I must consult with reality (et cetera, et cetera) objectively right? I don't know, you tell me. I'm not interested in explaining it because it seems to me that, based on your responses, it should be blatantly clear to you.

Yeah, I think the reason you won't explain it is because you can't. I also think your posts are a confused mess. Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the reason you won't explain it is because you can't. I also think your posts are a confused mess.

 

I'm not seeing where your disagreement with what I said was. The questions I asked were not rhetorical. What specifically were you asking me?

 

I wasn't interested in explaining why I feel it necessary to consult reality for proof because I've never met an Objectivist (and very few people besides Objectivists, for that matter) who believed otherwise. There was a lot to write besides that, and seeing as your question was unclear in the first place, I didn't want to assume that you were asking me why reality is the final arbiter of rightness and respond to that when it could very well have been a waste of time. 

 

I'm also not seeing how my posts are a confused mess. I organize them by quoting something that I feel should be responded to, and then after the quote I write my response. I've tried to explain myself as clearly as possible. What would you like for me to clarify or make less confusing? 

 

Edit: That was also not the only point from your post I addressed. Again, what is confusing about my posts, making it untenable for you to read through them and respond to them with anything other than what you have offered so far? 

Edited by Iudicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and that's something that you arrived at through a deductive line of reasoning. You were not born with that knowledge in your head. You do not know it inherently. No God has given that knowledge to you through divine will. You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off. 

Inference consists of two modes: induction and deduction. If you induce your conclusions in accordance with the evidence of reality, where is the contradictory evidence to arise from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ludicious said:

Sorry, but what you mean to say is "if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to my philosophy, I would have taken the time to respond in detail." Say what you mean.

Unlike any of the other people who responded to me, your first responses said absolutely nothing worth even considering, other than just "you're wrong". Which is why I didn't consider them.

No I said what I meant. I meant to not spend much time elaborating on your snarky comments that ignored the fact that you are in a forum dedicated to the philosophy I advocate. I did this precisely because you initiated this behavior on Oist turf and then just declared your contradictory nonsense in condescension yourself. if you had made any semblance of an attempt to respect that your in a forum that has Oist philosophy as the context I would have taken the time to dissect your errors. What's more is that this isn't the first time you've done this in this forum.

"if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to" the context of this forum you would have had that respect returned to you.

ludicious said:

I agree, because that's another way of saying what I already said.

If you actually believe this than I'm not sure you can be helped. What I said means that the special sciences are subject to philosophical veto when they make philosophical errors. (Like claiming that its possible for there to be "incontrovertible evidence" that an axiomatic fact is wrong) Whats more is that you claimed the special sciences "formalize induction" but I just said that philosophy tells the special science what induction and evidence is.....

ludicious said:

I understand that axioms aren't provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them. Here's the thing: you are not born inherently knowing about any axiom. Yes, an axiom is implied by knowing anything - but this is a fact that has to be deduced from working with the facts of reality. It is not something anyone knows inherently, which means some process of thought must lead to it. Which leads back to what I was already saying before:

What you said before included more statements like:

If an axiom is solidly, incontrovertibly, contradicted by the evidence of reality, you have only two recourses: either admit that your induction process is flawed and cannot be relied on, or admit that your deduction of the axiom/the thought process leading you to the axiom is wrong.

There are no other options here.

Which contradicts the claim that you "understand that axioms aren't provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them." because this would tell you that the the only option here is that the axioms are incontrovertible and you are contradicting yourself.

ludicious said:

Again with you talking about what I do or do not understand. Don't assume to know what I do or do not know. It's rude, and it makes you seem like an ass.

I understand that I have responded to what you said as evidence of what you think you know. What was rude was you coming in a forum dedicated to the philosophy I'm defending and making condescending snarky comments and then being surprised that you were deemed unworthy of more than a notice that you have no idea what your talking about. In particular because this forum presupposes that which you are denying.

ludicious said:

What you just said is precisely what led me to my conclusion. A contradiction of free will provided by incontrovertible evidence from reality would imply a contradiction. That contradiction can lie in one of two places: if there is truly no way around the evidence, no way to reject it otherwise, then you must assume that either your ability to induce anything from reality is flawed, hence producing the contradiction by giving you false evidence from reality, or that your original deduction of the axioms is wrong.

I'm saying that I would at least consider the facts of reality simply because either one of those two things is a pretty big leap.

More of the same contradictory error... What your missing is that you are arguing that this scenario:

:

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I'd take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I'm not infallible. I've proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I'd have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality.

Is a possibility. Specifically that you think the axioms "could be wrong", which contradicts the statement that you "understand that axioms aren't provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them"

ludicious said:

I recommend you stop condescendingly assuming what I do or do not know.

I recommend you comprehend what you've actually said you "know" is not an assumption on my part!

ludicious said:

Once again saying something not worth considering. Do you have something more to say about this, or are you just going to say "you're wrong, epistemologically" and leave it at that?

I've said much more than this and you actually claimed that you accept what I said that was more.....Ill add something else. Understanding concept formation is a requirement to understand induction... Good luck rationalizing how that is not an epistemological endeavor. How many special scientist do you know who have a clue what concept formation involves?......

ludicious said:

I'll humor you anyways. In science, we don't treat something as 100% certain when based off of evidence of reality. The reason for this is that when you induce a fact, you do so using a limited amount of evidence. The full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you. But if something is true in enough cases, you can induce that it is a general truth. That does not mean that something can't come along later that contradicts it. You can work under the assumption that solidly backed theories are indeed true - but if something comes along that really, truly contradicts those theories, they are not off the table for reconsideration. The evidence just needs to be very strong before their wrongness would be considered.

Humorous indeed. Given that you are arguing that the axioms are subject to this kind of possibility.......The "the full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you" on any matter, philosophical or other wise and that's why your philosophy-deduction vs "science" induction argument is nonsense.

Edit: whats more is that you are implicitly claiming that the axioms aren't "based on the evidence of reality" because you think they are "deduced". Do you claim that deduction then is the only "certain" kind of knowledge???

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Plasmatic is correct in this sense:

Axioms are incontrovertible. If one discovers evidence (perhaps by a process which we may term "science") which seems to contradict an axiom, then one has either done his science incorrectly, or he is misinterpreting his evidence.

I believe that ludicious is correct in this sense:

An individual may be mistaken in what he believes to be "axiomatic" or in how he applies such a belief. If one discovers evidence (perhaps by a process which we may term "science") which seems to contradict that which he considers to be an axiom, then he must be willing to entertain the additional possibilities that he is mistaken in either his choice of "axiomatic belief" or in his application of the same.

Am I incorrect on any point here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your correct that Im correct.... ;)

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I said means that the special sciences are subject to philosophical veto when they make philosophical errors. .

I think you are very wrong here. Consider sNerd's post about philosophy being a lot of generalizations helped along by science. Iud already explained he agrees that science depends on some good philosophy, although there is disagreement over what is the exact nature of axioms. Philosophy doesn't veto science, nor does science veto philosophy. They are symbiotic in the sense that science is observation of reality. Good philosophy is the same. If at some point science shows contradictions, either your philosophy must be updated, or you're interpreting it wrong.

 

As I said, the charge of physics being infested with bad philosophy is about saying that it undermines itself. Why physics in particular? Because it is closely related to basic questions of existence. Don't get ahead of yourself, the topic is about a philosophy question that looks to be based on bad science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what is confusing about my posts

I didn't say confusing, I said confused. I think you're confused about the subject you're discussing, and don't have a well thought out position.

I'll pick one blatant example out of many:

Philosophically, empirical evidence is valid because there is no other kind of evidence with regards to reality.

You make no further attempts to clarify. From where I'm standing, that's much too obviously an invalid inference for me to expect that you'll ever get around to making a coherent, well thought out argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

hink you are very wrong here. Consider sNerd's post about philosophy being a lot of generalizations helped along by science.

I obviously disagree that is the case. You will not find support for this in any Oist literature... Bacon himself would not agree with his formulation as the two were not considered separate things....

Louie said:

lud already explained he agrees that science depends on some good philosophy, although there is disagreement over what is the exact nature of axioms.

And I've already explained that he contradicted this in other statement he made.

Louie said:

Philosophy doesn't veto science, nor does science veto philosophy. They are symbiotic in the sense that science is observation of reality. Good philosophy is the same. If at some point science shows contradictions, either your philosophy must be updated, or you're interpreting it wrong.

I'm not surprised you think this given other things you said that contradict Oism directly. Both Ms. Rand and Dr. Peikoff have published differently... Philosophy is a science for Oism. And now you've contradicted yourself too. Science cant "veto" philosophy but somehow it can make you "update" your philosophy.....

As I said, the charge of physics being infested with bad philosophy is about saying that it undermines itself. Why physics in particular? Because it is closely related to basic questions of existence. Don't get ahead of yourself, the topic is about a philosophy question that looks to be based on bad science.

What you said doesn't make any sense. The topic is about asking a question that presupposes that physics can answer philosophical questions all the while calling them "science". And when others pointed out that it is "bad philosophy" snark and condescension ensued. Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your correct that Im correct.... ;)

I don't doubt it.

 

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

Hmm...

I consider the case I'm making to be somewhat subtle. Or maybe I'm just flat-out wrong to try to draw a distinction here, between an axiom (which may never be mistaken) and one's understanding or identification of an axiom (which might)? But let me attempt to make the case anyways, and maybe we can figure it out. Maybe this is simply some remnant of skepticism infecting my ideas.

I'm quite on board with the idea that one cannot "disprove" those ideas which themselves make proof possible. Yet a person could be mistaken in his identification of which ideas those are. Couldn't he?

To try to approach this a different way...

I believe in free will. I do not believe that there can exist anything which would demonstrate free will to be false, primarily based on my experience of my own will, but also in recognition of the fact that to "demonstrate" in this sense is itself an appeal to my volition. To "demonstrate" presumes free will.

Yet imagine if I were discussing matters with someone else who made the claim that -- oh, I don't know -- "free will" means that drug addicts shouldn't ever require any sort of rehabilitation, because they could simply "will" themselves to stop. Or that there's no reason why Charlie Manson (if he were ever paroled) couldn't make for a perfectly fine babysitter -- because "free will" means that he could simply opt to be a different man from one second to the next, and as good as Galt.

Suppose that I attempted to argue with him on these points, and in reply he said something like: "I don't even have to consider your 'arguments' or your 'evidence.' You're arguing against free will and you depend upon free will to do so, therefore your position is necessarily self-contradictory."

Well that wouldn't be very helpful, I don't think, for either of us. I would want him to understand, at the least, that he might be mistaken in his interpretation or application of "free will," and to give my argument a fair hearing and assessment before dismissal. For his own sake, I believe that he should want the same thing.

Thus, if someone were to approach me with an argument that holds that I've made some mistake in either the choice, formulation or application of that which I hold to be "axiomatic," oughtn't I at least give the claim a hearing? If it turns out that their argument presupposes or relies upon the very thing that they seek to reject (as for instance, free will), then I can identify that fact and subsequently dismiss their claim (and maybe/hopefully even help them to do the same). Yet my rejection would depend on my identification (that is, in conclusion, following my having assessed it), and not on rejecting it before such an identification, on the basis of it being judged to be an attack on some axiomatic position or belief, as such.

Is this sensible? Or have I got it all wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITOE said:

If it should be asked, at this point: Who,

then, is to keep order in the organization of

man's conceptual vocabulary, suggest the

changes or expansions of definitions,

formulate the principles of cognition and the

criteria of science, protect the objectivity of

methods and of communications within and

among the special sciences, and provide the

guidelines for the integration of mankind's

knowledge?—the answer is: philosophy.

These, precisely, are the tasks of

epistemology. The highest responsibility of

philosophers is to serve as the guardians and

integrators of human knowledge.

This is the responsibility on which modern

philosophy has not merely defaulted, but

worse: which it has reversed. It has taken the

lead in the disintegration and destruction of

knowledge—and has all but committed

suicide in the process.

Philosophy is the foundation of science;

epistemology is the foundation of

philosophy. It is with a new approach to

epistemology that the rebirth of philosophy

has to begin.

More later Don.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophy is a science for Oism.

 

That's the point. Special science is critical to the development of philosophy, and philosophy is critical to the development of special science. If it's not the Oist view, I don't care. I actually would say it is an implied view, but not part of Oism. Rand did write that the industrial revolution was necessary to develop her philosophy, or at least to conclude capitalism is indeed the best political system.

 

And by update, I only mean that good philosophy *must* take into account any and all observations of reality. I think that's what matters here. Do you agree? If I observe that planets orbit the sun in an ellipse, that right away nullifies any philosophy that declares the universe operates in perfect, symmetrical  harmony. Kepler worked for a long time to fruitlessly to show alleged perfect harmony. Nothing worked. As a result he had to update his philosophy to even see that his interpretation of data was right, his philosophy wrong. If Kepler insisted on his philosophy, we'd call that "bad philosophy" tainting physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos said:

 

 

between an axiom (which may never be mistaken) and one's understanding or identification of an axiom (which might)?... I'm quite on board with the idea that one cannot "disprove" those ideas which themselves make proof possible. Yet a person could be mistaken in his identification of which ideas those are. Couldn't he?

 

This. This is what I've been trying to get at, apparently less successfully. Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one's identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That's three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.

 

I did qualify that if evidence existed to contradict an axiom, the axiom would not be the first place I'd look for a failure. I'd re-examine the evidence and the conclusion endlessly, because presumably if I hold an axiom to be true, I've repeatedly re-affirmed that the axiom is necessary for all other things I encounter.

 

Plasmatic said:

 

 

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

 

It seems to me that I've either mis-stated my case or you've misunderstood what I've stated.

 

I agree that any kind of proof presupposses the axioms that I hold to be true. My issue is that the axioms were not handed down to me by divine will - I identified them myself, and I am fallible. If evidence contradicted my identification of the axioms, I'd be very hard pressed to accept the evidence or the conclusion drawn from it... but if the evidence and conclusion proved incontrovertible, I would have to re-examine my identification of the axioms, because I am fallible and I may have mis-identified or misinterpreted the axioms.

 

 

Specifically that you think the axioms "could be wrong", which contradicts the statement that you "understand that axioms aren't provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them"

 

Your disagreement here seems to lie in me misusing terms, I suppose. No, if an axiom is truly an axiom, it cannot be disproved. Axioms are not subject to truth values.

 

I, however, am. I'm entirely capable of mis-identifying an axiom. I'm entirely capable of misinterpreting an axiom. I can make mistakes. So if the evidence of reality truly, incontrovertibly, contradicted something that I believed to be an axiom - well, I'd be forced to consider the possibility that I mis-identified it as an axiom, or I misinterpreted the consequences of that axiom. If such a thing ever happened, it would imply that the axiom is, perhaps, not an axiom at all.

 

However, as I have said previously, it would take a whole hell of a lot of examination, re-examination, and re-re-examination of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before I would even entertain that possibility. An axiom is considered so because it is necessary for me to believe anything that I have seen up to that point. Something that tells me my belief in an axiom is wrong would have to be convincing enough to also make me think that everything else that I've seen and believed in my life to that point is also wrong - and proving that to me would be one hell of a feat.

 

 

 

My issue was originally with someone criticizing a scientific idea on account of it being "bad philosophy." My contention is simply that that's not an appropriate response to scientific evidence and a scientific conclusion. If there is an absolutely miniscule chance that I mis-identified an axiom, there's still a chance. I'm not saying that I would immediately assume my philosophy to be wrong if science contradicted it - but I would also not use my philosophy as a basis for criticizing the scientific idea. I'd examine the idea, the evidence and the conclusion drawn from the evidence on a scientific basis until I found where the fault is in its conclusion.

Edited by Iudicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one's identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That's three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.

But they aren't "equally valid", at least not under a completely rational, reality based, fully integrated philosophy. Part of the problem here is talking in generalities. Talking about all "philosophies" and all "axioms" in general, as if they all describe reality correctly and are all equally valid is absurd and obviously untrue. Since we are on an Objectivist forum, why don't we talk about Objectivism.

Do you think Ayn Rand's identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are axioms and what the characteristics and identifying features of an axiom are? If so, have you validated this knowledge for yourself?

In other words, do you agree and accept that these three are actually axioms and that they truly describe reality? Meaning: there would be no science if existence didn't exist, there would be no science without conscious beings examining what exists, there would be no science if the thing you were examining could be itself and something else at the same time?

If so, if you agree with all this, then I don't see how you could accept any evidence that would invalidate that very same evidence. If some "scientist" came up to me claiming to have evidence that I didn't exist, I was not conscious, or that the coffee I was drinking could be a pile of shit, I'm not sure what I would do first, there are too many logical options. I suppose a slap in the face could defeat his entire line of argument quite eloquently. When he protested I would say, protests, slaps, my hand and the two of us don't exist, certainly, neither of us is conscious so we must be dreaming, and anyway, it wasn't actually a slap, it was a kiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Ayn Rand's identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are axioms and what the characteristics and identifying features of an axiom are? If so, have you validated this knowledge for yourself?

He was very clear in explaining in his post that since people are infallible, our understanding of the axioms is fallible too, as in it is possible to discover that something you think is an axiom never was an axiom to begin with. That isn't even saying "existence exists" isn't valid, it just means that along with all knowledge, we must observe the world as it is.

 

To be blunt about it, I'm not sure you understood Rand's argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

 

Yes, I said "probably". But possibility of being wrong doesn't erase certainty.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was very clear in explaining in his post that since people are infallible, our understanding of the axioms is fallible too, as in it is possible to discover that something you think is an axiom never was an axiom to begin with. That isn't even saying "existence exists" isn't valid, it just means that along with all knowledge, we must observe the world as it is.

 

To be blunt about it, I'm not sure you understood Rand's argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

 

Yes, I said "probably". But possibility of being wrong doesn't erase certainty.

 

And yet again Eiuol says what I'm thinking more eloquently and concisely than I ever could.  :thumbsup:

Edited by Iudicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be blunt about it, I'm not sure you understood Rand's argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

You've got to be kidding me...... Quote anything in Oist literature you think supports this nonsense of "axioms can change with new observations"...... This is so anti Oist that I cant believe a moderator in this forum is saying it. You have no understanding of the basis of certainty at all if you believe this.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you louie?

Edited by Plasmatic
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...