Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Passive Epistemology

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

After reading ITOE, it's occurred to me that the description of epistemology therein is a passive one. That is, that while the process of observing, differentiating and integrating entities into a conceptual framework is volitional, the interaction with reality, as described, is a one-way, passive one. In previous threads I've seen statements supporting the primacy of reality over consciousness, such as "you don't really believe you can change reality by thinking about it?" (paraphrased, from mem) Now, I understood what the point of the question was, and this is not an argument against the primacy of reality, but the real answer to the query is: yes, I do, and I can. I can think about moving my body and in doing so, change reality. Further, I can extend the effects of my movements, to say, mine and refine uranium, etc.. and effect reality in dramatic ways.

Now before you start warming up your keyboard on what I've written so far, here comes my question: at a fundamental level, would it be fair to say that epistemology is the internal integration of perceptions of reality, and that science is the active manipulation of reality by a conscious mind, intent on producing an observable effect?

The reason I ask this is that Miss Rand seems intent on separating science from philosophy. In doing so, however, I don't believe she ever defines the fundamental essence of science, which I believe is, roughly stated, poking reality to see what happens.

The problem I see with separating science from philosophy, given the previous discussion, is that you must then separate active experimentation from epistemology (or am I being too rigid in my demarcations?) I believe that interaction with reality is a crucial part of epistemology. A child unable to interact with reality is probably unlikely to fully form a rational framework of the same.

My reason for asking these questions is that I am a scientist by nature (engineer by profession), and I have a hard time rejecting science as "something other" when we write about epistemology and philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading ITOE, it's occurred to me that the description of epistemology therein is a passive one. That is, that while the process of observing, differentiating and integrating entities into a conceptual framework is volitional, the interaction with reality, as described, is a one-way, passive one.

You can choose to not think. You can't choose to stop interacting with reality *and* remain alive, so yes, your interaction with reality is passive. You exist, reality exists, it is, you do not have a choice in that matter other than to choose to cease to exist.

In previous threads I've seen statements supporting the primacy of reality over consciousness, such as "you don't really believe you can change reality by thinking about it?" (paraphrased, from mem) Now, I understood what the point of the question was, and this is not an argument against the primacy of reality, but the real answer to the query is: yes, I do, and I can. I can think about moving my body and in doing so, change reality. Further, I can extend the effects of my movements, to say, mine and refine uranium, etc.. and effect reality in dramatic ways.

Thinking isn't acting. When you think about moving your body, you first must put your thought into action. Rand advocated thinking before acting, as opposed to acting before thinking, or acting without thinking.

Now before you start warming up your keyboard on what I've written so far,
too late

here comes my question: at a fundamental level, would it be fair to say that epistemology is the internal integration of perceptions of reality, and that science is the active manipulation of reality by a conscious mind, intent on producing an observable effect?

Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and understanding. It is the study of what constitutes knowledge and truth, and how one knows that such is knowledge and truth. It is one branch of philosophy.

Science is based on the pure application of reason to what is already established as knowledge to determine new knowledge. Science does not concern itself with how it knows its knowledge is knowledge - science concerns itself with adding TO that knowledge, fundamentally accepting the method of how one proves that knowledge to be true in its basis.

The reason I ask this is that Miss Rand seems intent on separating science from philosophy. In doing so, however, I don't believe she ever defines the fundamental essence of science, which I believe is, roughly stated, poking reality to see what happens.

Science is, therefore, not separate from philosophy, but a product of it. Without the philosophy to tell you know you know what you know, how to see that existence exists, and how to apply reason and logic to what you know and what exists, you could not use the scientific method.

The problem I see with separating science from philosophy, given the previous discussion, is that you must then separate active experimentation from epistemology (or am I being too rigid in my demarcations?) I believe that interaction with reality is a crucial part of epistemology. A child unable to interact with reality is probably unlikely to fully form a rational framework of the same.

As stated before, you can not choose not to interact with reality. You can only choose not to think while doing so. The broken unit (child) above is not unable to interact with reality, but unable to think.

My reason for asking these questions is that I am a scientist by nature (engineer by profession), and I have a hard time rejecting science as "something other" when we write about epistemology and philosophy.

Science is the intellectuals product of rational philosophy as capitalism is the business mans result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... science is the active manipulation of reality by a conscious mind, intent on producing an observable effect?
This is a non-standard use of the term "science", which usually means a body of knowledge. You appear to be speaking of engineering. I think you're saying that Rand separated the science of philosophy from its practice. If so, how or in what sense? Do you mean that she thought and wrote a lot about one, but left the other for other thinkers and authors? Or, do you mean that she denigrated practice in some way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now before you start warming up your keyboard on what I've written so far, here comes my question: at a fundamental level, would it be fair to say that epistemology is the internal integration of perceptions of reality, and that science is the active manipulation of reality by a conscious mind, intent on producing an observable effect?
No, that would not be correct. The difference lies in the "special training / equipment" aspect. See the appendix "Philosophic vs. Scientific Issues" p 289 ff. Especially:

Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true. So whenever you are in doubt about what is or is not a philosophical subject, ask yourself whether you need a specialized knowledge, beyond the knowledge available to you as a normal adult, unaided by any special knowledge or special instruments. And if the answer is possible to you on that basis alone, you are dealing with a philosophical question. If to answer it you would need training in physics, or psychology, or special equipment, etc., then you are dealing with a derivative or scientific field of knowledge, not philosophy.

For example, you cannot philosophize your way to Avogadro's number or the number of protons in the universe (well, you can, but come on...). On the other hand, no specialized observation is required to conclude that fire destroys sticks. Scientific inquiry is not required to validate some form of Occam's Razor. You need philosophy to create a framework for evaluating scientific hypotheses, which will tell you why the fact that a certain theory is "beautiful" is irrelevant if it is also false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can choose to not think.

Really?

Thinking isn't acting. When you think about moving your body, you first must put your thought into action. Rand advocated thinking before acting, as opposed to acting before thinking, or acting without thinking.

Your confusing the figurative with the literal. You can not act without thinking. You can act without thinking rationally through the consequences.

...

too late

Hmmm...

Science is, therefore, not separate from philosophy, but a product of it.

Rand is clear on a demarcation between philosophy and science. Being a "product of" does not equate to being "part of," or being "inseparable from."

...isn't that a question for science to determine? Philosophy cannot answer it one way or another.

-Ayn Rand, ITOE p 189, discussing whether all material measurements may ultimately come down to a small list of measurements.

As stated before, you can not choose not to interact with reality. You can only choose not to think while doing so.

I think you have that backwards. You can choose not to interact, to not put your thoughts into action, as you put it, but I challenge you to choose not to think.

Science is the intellectuals product of rational philosophy as capitalism is the business mans result.

I think you have this one backwards as well. I will agree that science results from man's desire to actively pursue knowledge, rather than passively (in the physical sense) integrating his perceptions, and is thus spurred by his initial attempts at epistemology. But capitalism is the philosophy supporting the "science" of business, not the other way.

Regardless, back to my original question, can science be defined as the active pursuit of knowledge, and if so, is it really separable from epistemology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that would not be correct. The difference lies in the "special training / equipment" aspect. See the appendix "Philosophic vs. Scientific Issues" p 289 ff. Especially:

Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true. So whenever you are in doubt about what is or is not a philosophical subject, ask yourself whether you need a specialized knowledge, beyond the knowledge available to you as a normal adult, unaided by any special knowledge or special instruments. And if the answer is possible to you on that basis alone, you are dealing with a philosophical question. If to answer it you would need training in physics, or psychology, or special equipment, etc., then you are dealing with a derivative or scientific field of knowledge, not philosophy.

For example, you cannot philosophize your way to Avogadro's number or the number of protons in the universe (well, you can, but come on...). On the other hand, no specialized observation is required to conclude that fire destroys sticks. Scientific inquiry is not required to validate some form of Occam's Razor. You need philosophy to create a framework for evaluating scientific hypotheses, which will tell you why the fact that a certain theory is "beautiful" is irrelevant if it is also false.

I'm trying to get down to essentials here - there seems to be gray area between the man with normal mental equipment (I assume this means a brain and several acute senses), and a man with "specialized knowledge." How do we define "specialized knowledge?" - do we mean knowledge which has been gained from previous work of others? And if so, is this necessary and sufficient to define science? And what of special instruments? How do we fundamentally define "special instrument?" - do we mean one that has been developed by someone else? This is an area that I find poorly defined, and without a good understanding of the essential, fundamental difference between philosophy and science.

As an example, the character from "Anthem" creates a laboratory using only his normal mental equipment. He also practices science first, before having a conscious understanding of the underlying philosophy.

I agree with your statement on Occam's Razor, but only because it is a guideline, not a law (if I understand it correctly it does not necessarily hold true in all cases), so a scientific inquiry would consist of setting up a situation that contradicts Occam's Razor, and in so doing "disproves" it.

Good philosophy is essential for good science, especially the development of theories, experiments and interpretations, but only through the execution of the scientific method are contradictions found that feed into the philosophy of science. I find the two inextricably linked, and at a fundamental level, a natural consequence of our existence in reality.

This isn't an attempt to find a "mistake" in Objectivist philosophy, only to probe what seems to me a soft point, to see if there's a better way to think about this particular area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

Yes - that is to say - you can choose not to think rationally.

Your confusing the figurative with the literal. You can not act without thinking. You can act without thinking rationally through the consequences.

Again, by think I mean "think rationally".

Rand is clear on a demarcation between philosophy and science. Being a "product of" does not equate to being "part of," or being "inseparable from."

To be the product of something is to be the result of something. Science (pure science) could not exist without the surety of knowledge of epistemology, or the understanding of existence that comes from Metaphysics. Without reason, knowledge and existence, science would be random flailing.

I think you have that backwards. You can choose not to interact, to not put your thoughts into action, as you put it, but I challenge you to choose not to think.

No, I meant it literally. Again, to think is to think rationally. Interaction with reality is passive. If you sit perfectly motionless and do absolutely nothing, existence continues to exist, and you along with it, and your interaction by existing continues whether you try to do anything with it or not.

I think you have this one backwards as well. I will agree that science results from man's desire to actively pursue knowledge, rather than passively (in the physical sense) integrating his perceptions, and is thus spurred by his initial attempts at epistemology. But capitalism is the philosophy supporting the "science" of business, not the other way.

Capitalism is the application of rational thinking to the trade of value between two entities. Just as the rational thinking scientist was able to experiment before the scientific method was fully defined and understood, so business for mutual benefit was able to take place before the Capitalistic Method was fully understood. When a scientist accepts and implements the Scientific Method fully, he validates his research by founding it on sound, rational principles. When the businessman accepts and implements Capitalism fully - or at least as fully as possible (foregoing the power of pull to the fullest extent possible), he in turn validates his business by founding it on sound, rational principles.

A medicine man may be a sort of experimenter, but he is not a scientist, he is a witch-doctor who attributes his success to mystic powers, not deduction. A mobster is a sort of businessman, but he is not a capitalist, he is a looter who does business by force.

So - is Capitalism the philosophy that supports business? Or the product of a rational philosophy as it applies to the men of action, as science applies to the men of thought?

Regardless, back to my original question, can science be defined as the active pursuit of knowledge, and if so, is it really separable from epistemology?

And again, the scientific method is a product of, in part, epistemology. 49 is the product of 7 times 7. 49 is not a part of 7, 7 is a part of 49. A child is the product of its parents - but a child becomes independent of its parents. Likewise, science is not a part of epistemology, epistemology is a part of science. But as DavidOdden said, the specialized knowledge and equipment associated with it make science separate from epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a non-standard use of the term "science", which usually means a body of knowledge. You appear to be speaking of engineering. I think you're saying that Rand separated the science of philosophy from its practice. If so, how or in what sense? Do you mean that she thought and wrote a lot about one, but left the other for other thinkers and authors? Or, do you mean that she denigrated practice in some way?

No, I'm speaking of science as the active pursuit of knowledge, that is, everything from turning a rock over to see if it has an "other side" to polishing pieces of melted sand to get a closer look at an ant or a comet. Rand doesn't denigrate science, per se, although she does denigrate the breaking free of science from its philosophic mooring.

My question asks what science is and what role it has in epistemology. My leaning is to assert that the "specialized" tag that Rand used is an arbitrary and undefinable threshold, and that the fundamental of science is the active manipulation of reality that focuses our perception and refines our understanding of particular aspects.

As I said in an earlier post, ITOE, as far as I remember, describes a passive integration of perceptions, and does not speak to the interaction we humans use to get a better handle on reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we define "specialized knowledge?" - do we mean knowledge which has been gained from previous work of others?
As far as I can tell, it isn't important to rigorously make that distinction. It would certainly never be a matter of "definition", rather it would be a question of identification. Is there a field of knowledge known as "science" and is there a separate field of knowledge known as "philosophy"?
I agree with your statement on Occam's Razor, but only because it is a guideline, not a law (if I understand it correctly it does not necessarily hold true in all cases), so a scientific inquiry would consist of setting up a situation that contradicts Occam's Razor, and in so doing "disproves" it.
On the contrary, I would argue that it is a law and that it is never wrong. If you have something in mind that shows that OR is false, we can talk.

It certainly is not the case that Rand proposes "passive integration" for philosophy and "active integration" for science. In fact, the more cogent distinction would be between language acquisition vs. other kinds of learning. The impression of "passive integration" that I think you're referring to regards the mental development of children and the learning of semantic properties of words.

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...