Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vik

Regulars
  • Posts

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Vik

  1. The codicile "every knowledge statement has the unstated parenthesis 'within my context of knowledge'" mildly sounds like an unscientific get-out-of-jail-free card, but it is one only if you have no normative scientific principles.

    I see 5 such principles mentioned in your post:

    You must define your concepts in terms of essentials.

    You must examine instances that have a logical, conceptual relationship to the conclusion.

    You must redefine your concepts when new evidence demands it.

    You must clarify your conclusion when changes to your definitions demand it.

    Your state of knowledge will tell you whether a claim is warranted or arbitrary.

    I would add that wider generalizations must summarize or explain all narrower generalizations falling within its context.

  2. but you would have sufficient evidence that gravity operates in terms of attractions and masses (a general principle), and gravity does not just operate by the principle "things are attracted to the center of the Earth". In a non-imaginary albeit ancient scientific context, it would be arbitrary to say "If Jupiter were positioned 100 miles away from Earth, a pen will float up", i.e. if you do not have knowledge of the relevance of gravity to celestial mechanics.

    Constant acceleration is enough to settle the first question, but it is NOT enough to settle the second.

    You need a sum of forces framework--something that Galileo didn't have. Although Galileo understood that motion cannot change without a force, he didn't seem grasp its connection to acceleration.

    I would argue that such connections distinguish explanatory generalizations from mere descriptive ones.

    I would also argue that such connections are made possible by new concepts.

  3. What we have here are basically three questions:

    ...

    3. Can abduction be valid? Can it be justified on rational grounds?

    Sometimes the facts are such that there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of a proposition and nothing known that contradicts it.

    If the proposition explains a wide variety of phenomena, there is value in adopting it AS IF it were true--just to see what facts it leads us to.

    In that context, hypotheses have enormous INSTRUMENTAL value, i.e. as part of a method for acquiring more knowledge.

  4. Be careful with the evidence criterion.

    Consider the following proposition:

    "If I let go of this pen, and the sum of forces in the opposite direction, away from the center of the earth, precisely cancelled out the force associated with gravity, the pen will float"

    I have no evidence that such a thing WILL happen, but the proposition is true nonetheless. In fact, I could fill a tank with a fluid slightly more dense than the pen and the pen will float without issue.

    Why isn't my proposition arbitrary? Because I've specified the relevant condition.

    It's a bit like saying:

    "If I let go of this pen, it will fall--provided that no forces presently unknown to me will cancel out the force associated with gravity"

    And there's certainly nothing arbitrary about THAT.

  5. If one billiard ball strikes another, what causes the subsequent movement of the struck billiard ball? I know that only entities act, but surely it wasn't the first billiard ball which engendered the motion of the second? Isn't the act of hitting the second billiard ball what causes the hit billiard ball to move?

    The billiard balls interacted according to their respective identities, producing a change in the state of the second ball.

×
×
  • Create New...