Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"One Problem With Objectivism"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This thread is a gambit by "Bill" to establish the significance of 'validity' with such power that it reinforces deduction and minimizes induction. In a tour de force, he does it by explicating a syllogism that demonstrates the validity of "God does not exist." This is a sly tactic from a theist. 'See, I am not about faith. I am open to a proof that God does not exist. I consider "god does not exist" to be falisifiable."

He is an Analytical Philosopher, let us not forget. So he is securing the weightiness of his approach, making it seem that any feeble attempt to prove the "truth" of a statement by poor little old fallacious induction is a fool's delusion by comparison.

Meanwhile, Thomas, you have been challenged by Barnes to go up against a theist who has just shown a valid syllogism "God does not exist" to demonstrate that he is void because induction was not used to establish the premises, induction which Barnes claims is destroyed by Hume and Ayn Rand.

John Donohue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This thread is a gambit by "Bill" to establish the significance of 'validity' with such power that it reinforces deduction and minimizes induction. In a tour de force, he does it by explicating a syllogism that demonstrates the validity of "God does not exist." This is a sly tactic from a theist. 'See, I am not about faith. I am open to a proof that God does not exist. I consider "god does not exist" to be falisifiable."

I think you've misunderstood his post. He's not using any "tactics": you're making that up in your head. The argument that Thomas wrote is deductively valid. In the logical sense, 'valid' means: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity does not relate to the veracity of an argument, it relates to the manner in which an argument is presented. When the premises are actually true, and the argument is valid, then the argument is also sound. The example Thomas gave is valid but unsound.

It is important to remember that both validity and soundness are characterizations of deductive reasoning. When talking about inductive reasoning, the terms change, and one must use the concept of congency. The entire disagreement with the Maverick stems from deduction vs. induction. Rand, in the quotes that Thomas has brought into the discussion, is talking about inductive logic, whereas the Maverick is talking about deductive logic. The predictable result is that both parties talk past each other.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Thomas, you have been challenged by Barnes to go up against a theist who has just shown a valid syllogism "God does not exist" to demonstrate that he is void because induction was not used to establish the premises, induction which Barnes claims is destroyed by Hume and Ayn Rand.

I'm not sure what you mean by induction was destroyed by Hume and Rand. Hume was making an argument that induction is invalid because it doesn't use deductive logic, from what I remember, and that is true that induction does not use modal logic (deductive reasoning); but I am unaware that Rand said something similar, so perhaps you can give a reference. Induction does not use the same process as deduction. In other words, one does not try to deduce that what one observes is valid -- i.e. you don't need to deduce that you are reading these words, because you observe them.

Regarding what Bill said regarding, "If God is possible...", this is basically neither valid nor invalid, in terms of the Objectivist approach to logic (non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given in observation), it's actually arbitrary. In other words, there are no facts of reality that one can point to and say, "This is God". I think some of the other replies where pointing this out, the one's that said adding in an arbitrary term. Adding in an arbitrary term can give a valid syllogism, but it is not logical because it is not identifying a fact of reality. In other words, my post does not lend support that God exists because the term "God" is undefined and undefinable, so the first syllogism he introduced about God is basically gibberish -- i.e. has no relation to existence. I might post something about this, but I'm waiting to see what Bill says about logic as defined by Miss Rand. At some point, he cuts of the ability to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbering your paragraphs isn't a sufficient condition of "rigor".

:worry:

Norsen is really holding their feet to the fire in his most recent post. He readily deals with dismissive laypersons such as a writer for Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature. It's interesting that Vallicella allows their replies through, but not those of comparable depth from Objectivists.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding what Bill said regarding, "If God is possible...", this is basically neither valid nor invalid, in terms of the Objectivist approach to logic (non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given in observation), it's actually arbitrary.

Wait, why would one say that Bill's argument is not deductively valid? It is. If one accepts the truth of the premises, then the conclusion must necessarily be true. The term valid applies to the process of reason, it does not apply to the truth of the argument, neither in the premises or conclusion. One should reply to the post: "An Objectivist would say that Bill's argument is valid but unsound: valid, because the conclusion follows from the premises; unsound, because the premises do not follow from an identification of a fact of reality."

The Maverick conceives of Logic as a branch of philosophy, while Rand thinks of Logic as a tool of philosophy. There's a huge gap between the two views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you've misunderstood MY post.

I got that the syllogism is valid (as opposed to sound) and I understand everything you decided to just try to teach me 35 years ago. I also get everything you tried to say to me about induction and deduction in this blog fight, etc. What I just wrote was shooting far beyond this level.

You may not have read any of my prior posts or involvement in this situation, but if you have and still think I am making up imagined motives in my head, so be it. I was the first responder here, and pointed out these things 2 weeks ago.

Meanwhile, to go up a notch in sophistication, yes, this is a tactic. "Bill" is determined to put all the weight on deduction and minimize deduction. He does so by....hell, I am not going to explain, I already made the point......here:

He is an Analytical Philosopher, let us not forget. So he is securing the weightiness of his approach, making it seem that any feeble attempt to prove the "truth" of a statement by poor little old fallacious induction is a fool's delusion by comparison.

If you think that mere "innocent talking past one another" is all that is going on, so be it. The reality, however, is that Vallicella is completely aware of what Objectivism is and represents. He is not stupid. He is just playing dumb. His war plan is to marginalize Objectivism. One way he does that, one way all Analytical Philosophers do this, is by glorious feats of deduction and rationalistic logic, such as a theist 'proving' that "God does not exist" is a valid statement by that syllogism, therefore falsifiabile. And oh by the way, it might not be sound, but induction has nothing to do with anything, etc.

John Donohue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not sure what you mean by induction was destroyed by Hume and Rand."

It's not what "I mean" it is what Barnes said to you.

Did you not read the challenge to you by Daniel Barnes? He of course calls on the claim by Hume that induction is an informal fallacy, but then adds that Ayn Rand "has no solution to the clash" and cites ITOE page 304. Frankly, I did not look that up to see what he is pointing to. Barnes is a weasel and no matter what Rand said at that page, I am sure he is misconstruing it.

You then have this in your post to me: "... does not use modal logic (deductive reasoning)" and that is not accurate. Deduction does not equal modal. You then go on to instruct me...etc etc.

However, you do seem to understand the challenge to you that I was trying to point out. You have to get in the point that the soundness of an argument -- no matter if valid -- depends on using induction to identify the truth of the existents named in the premises. Good luck with that. I tried simply stating that and got banned. Travis and Binswanger have been attempting to establish this in gigantic posts.

These people are not going to allow this point. It would destroy their entire world view. They believe in God, for god's sake. To boil it all down: they are not going to allow in the idea that they first have to prove the existence of God by induction in order to deploy God in any arguments using deduction. They will refuse this with every fiber of their intellect and every insult they can call up. All the weight of Plato and Kant's religious belief, all the Scholastic tradition, every Jesuit scholar's fierce logic is against us. Thouands of years of warding off objective reality in order to "make room for faith."

Nevertheless, if you succeed, I salute you.

John Donohue

Pasadena, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that mere "innocent talking past one another" is all that is going on, so be it. The reality, however, is that Vallicella is completely aware of what Objectivism is and represents.

You said earlier: "This thread is a gambit by "Bill" to establish the significance of 'validity' with such power that it reinforces deduction and minimizes induction." However, given the fact that the concept 'validity' only applies to deductive arguments, I don't understand the meaning of your claim. There is no correlation between the Logical conception of 'validity' and the concept 'induction', so how can Bill be "establishing the significance of 'validity'" while "reinforcing deduction and minimizing induction"? Bill is not even talking about induction. At all. That's the problem. He's stuck in his deductive world.

I'm not sure how you are convinced that Bill is "completely aware of what Objectivism is and represents". Before packing your posts with words that insinuate some grand evil scheme, you should consider his perspective. Like you observed, he is an analytical philosopher. That hardly leads one to the conclusion that he is "securing the weightiness of his approach, making it seem that any feeble attempt to prove the "truth" of a statement by poor little old fallacious induction is a fool's delusion by comparison." In the terms we have been discussing, your argument is both invalid and unsound, since the premises you've given do not lead one to your conclusion, and your premises are demonstrably false. It may be possible that Bill simply thinks that induction is fallacious. In so far that this is the case (I think it is), the conversation should be centered upon straightening up that divergence of perspective.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of you may have been missing my point. In the first syllogism that Bill gave in his latest blog, he used the term "God", as in "If God is possible" and then used modal logic to come to the conclusion that God does not exist. But given that "God" is undefined and even undefinable (there is not anything one can point to in reality and say this is God or induce from evidence that this is due to God), then it is an arbitrary claim and has no cognitive significance. In other words, the first premise of "If God is possible" is neither true nor false, and has no cognitive status whatsoever. So, yes, in terms of modal logic, it was a valid syllogism, but the first premises being neither true nor false, and not being verifiable via induction, means that he might has well have been writing, "If giberouse were possible, then He is necessary." It would have the exact same cognitive status -- i.e. being outside the realm of existence and not worthy of consideration, if logic means the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given by observation. So, it is not that the premise is not true, leading to the conceded notion that God does exist, but rather he didn't actually say anything. And I think "arbitrary" in that sense will be lost to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just posted another reply regarding the arbitrariness of Bill's first premise in this series of blogs.

In talking about Modal Validity, Bill used a syllogism that I'd like to talk about:

1) If God is possible, then God is a necessary being.

2) If God is a necessary being, then unjustified evil is impossible.

3) Unjustified evil is possible.

Therefore, God is not possible.

If one were to say that the first premise is true, then God would have to not exist; if one were to say that the first premise were false, then one would have to conclude that God does exist. So, he seems to be saying that logical premises must be either true or false; but they aren't. Objectivism recognizes the possibility of an arbitrary premise -- one that cannot be either verified (true) nor denied (false). Theses types of premises have no cognitive status -- they say nothing about reality in any manner whatsoever. Remember, in Objectivism, logic is the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given in observation. If there is no observation to be made, then the premise is neither true nor false. Objectivism maintains this arbitrary status regarding the term "God." There is not anything in reality that one can point to as being God, nor can one point to any facts of reality and induce that there is a God. So the term God in that first premises leads to a syllogism that has nothing whatsoever to existence, and is therefore neither true nor false. It would be like stating:

If Gerberosk were possible, then Gerberosk would be necessary….

It is outside the realm of human cognition, and can be thrown out without further consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I will repeat, speaking for myself, that yes I understood what you said, very clearly. I also agree. It is the direct argument. I tried it in that blog. I got banned for it.

One time, when explicating the issue, I as usual ran into utter astonishment that I would expect the other person to validate the existents in their premises. It is so trivial for most people to expect to be able to just "slot anything they want" in and the start examining the logic as if this were a serious examination. In this case it was indeed about God. The person was attempting to prove that God existed.

After a long exchange in which I acknowleged that one might superficially determine that the logic was without logical fallacy, I said, "Even so, your proof says nothing about reality." Blustering outrage. "What do you mean?"

"Well, all the existents used in your all your premises must be proven to exist before your proof means anything about reality. You used God in the first two. You can't do that in a proof of the existence of God." "Oh yes we can, that is normal" "Not if you want Him to be real."

You know there is another level to this. One retort could be, "well, lets execute the proof, I'll supply the definition of all the existents." "Nope, not good enough." "Why not."

Our answer has to be "The meaning of the thing is not ONLY the distinguishing characteristics as stated in the definition; the meaning is all the characteristics of all the instances subsumed under the thing(s) identified. The meaning is the existents themselves; the definition and the concept it invokes are only the short-hand pointer to the actual, objective things named."

So when someone wants to introduce an imaginary existent into an argument, and expects that the supplied supposed definition equals the reality, we have to refuse the proof altogether.

John Donohue

Well I'm glad you posted it here, because he might remove it. Did you read his thread about "why I remove posts?"

Hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just posted another reply regarding the arbitrariness of Bill's first premise in this series of blogs.

In talking about Modal Validity, Bill used a syllogism that I'd like to talk about:

1) If God is possible, then God is a necessary being.

2) If God is a necessary being, then unjustified evil is impossible.

3) Unjustified evil is possible.

Therefore, God is not possible.

If one were to say that the first premise is true, then God would have to not exist; if one were to say that the first premise were false, then one would have to conclude that God does exist. So, he seems to be saying that logical premises must be either true or false; but they aren't. Objectivism recognizes the possibility of an arbitrary premise -- one that cannot be either verified (true) nor denied (false). Theses types of premises have no cognitive status -- they say nothing about reality in any manner whatsoever. Remember, in Objectivism, logic is the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given in observation. If there is no observation to be made, then the premise is neither true nor false. Objectivism maintains this arbitrary status regarding the term "God." There is not anything in reality that one can point to as being God, nor can one point to any facts of reality and induce that there is a God. So the term God in that first premises leads to a syllogism that has nothing whatsoever to existence, and is therefore neither true nor false. It would be like stating:

If Gerberosk were possible, then Gerberosk would be necessary….

It is outside the realm of human cognition, and can be thrown out without further consideration.

I have questions about the so-called "Objectivist logic", as it is being called in that discussion. I don't understand why one cannot isolate the above argument and state that it is valid in reason, but logically unsound, precisely because it cannot be inductively verified. Whatever the given premises are, one can quite easily construct a valid deductive argument. Isn't that why deductive reasoning, in and of itself, is not a means to truth? Ex:

All Men like twinzigs.

Joe is a Man.

Therefore, Joe likes twinzigs.

I would label this argument as deductively "valid" but "unsound." A deductive argument, without any inductively verifiable premises, is (as Thomas eloquently put it) without "cognitive status." It seems to be the case that in order to establish the veracity of any premise, and therefore of any argument, inductive logic must be used. Moreover, it seems that Rand's claim that "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" pertains to the realm of inductive logic. Is this correct?

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when someone wants to introduce an imaginary existent into an argument, and expects that the supplied supposed definition equals the reality, we have to refuse the proof altogether.

Well I'm glad you posted it here, because he might remove it. Did you read his thread about "why I remove posts?"

He did take down my essay about the arbitrary, but not my essay about Objectivist logic. I have to conclude that he is not concerned with keeping his mind tied to reality as observed, whether through extrospection on introspection. I'm sure he wouldn't consider "God" to be arbitrary because he can come up with a definition; but as you say, the definition of "God" has no referent in reality, and therefore is not a definition based upon facts (external or internal).

I think I'm done with him; as including myself, John, Travis Norsen, and Harry Binswanger, at least four rational individuals who know something about Objectivism have tried to convey to them what Objectivism is all about (understanding existence) and it has been rejected as not fitting within modal logic (deductive reasoning) and therefore can be dismissed as not having anything to do with philosophy.

It's rationalism writ large. In a sense, if one has followed Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis, it looks like they are misintegrated since there is some sense in which they are trying to be consistent with what they accept; it's just that they don't want to discuss existence as we are aware of it at all. Logic disconnected from reality is rationalism; and might be evasive, if one points out facts and they don't care to check their premises. I was warned and I observed it for myself, so I am convinced that is best to leave them to their own imaginary rationalistic devices of Platonic worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Men like twinzigs.

Joe is a Man.

Therefore, Joe likes twinzigs.

I would label this argument as deductively "valid" but "unsound." A deductive argument, without any inductively verifiable premises, is (as Thomas eloquently put it) without "cognitive status." It seems to be the case that in order to establish the veracity of any premise, and therefore of any argument, inductive logic must be used. Moreover, it seems that Rand's claim that "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" pertains to the realm of inductive logic. Is this correct?

It depends on what you mean by the term "valid". If by "valid" one means that the terms are properly defined so that one knows what a twinzing is referring to in reality, then the formate is valid and the conclusion is true. However, twinzig is entirely undefined, and therefore from a cognitive standpoint -- having something to do with reality as understood by the human mind -- it is entirely meaningless. Valid usually means that given the premises the conclusion follows. But Objectivism draws a distinction between valid and logical. If one is not talking about anything in reality, then it has no meaning and can be thrown out. And evidently, Bill, the Maverick Philosopher, does not recognize that the arbitrary is a third option that is neither true nor false.

For premises which are not true, then the conclusion is not following from the premises, according to the facts represented from the premises. People who like to use arbitrary assertions and non-true premises are rationalistic -- and they can only be reached if one can get their mind to recognize the Objectivist definition of logic as non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given by observation (and perhaps I should say of observation and rational abstractions). The problem is, no matter what definition one gives to logic, they will fall back on modal logic as the only possible type, since induction is not deduction and is not verified in the same type of process (deductively from premises). And since Hume and others have destroyed references to induction as a proper way of grasping existence, they don't care to even discuss induction as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to post so much at one time, but I have another observation to make. Harry Binswanger has identified the essence of modern philosophy as form without content and as coming from Kant's discussion about the Neumena world without any evidence -- i.e. one can have a valid form of a syllogism that has no mean in the sense of saying anything about reality. What Bill and the other people on his side are arguing is that so long as the form is maintained, then it is logic. Ayn Rand's definition of logic throws that out. I don't think they realize this, but that is the essence of Objectivism; that if one is not talking about some aspect of reality, then one is not being rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad. Well, welcome to the club.

If any of them ever gave the slightest credit to the idea that only those existents which can be objectively identified through Miss Rand's epistemological system are real, Immanuel Kant would rise up out of the grave, swack him over the head with a really heavy edition of The Critique of Pure Reason and poke his eyes out.

John Donohue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by the term "valid". If by "valid" one means that the terms are properly defined so that one knows what a twinzing is referring to in reality, then the formate is valid and the conclusion is true. However, twinzig is entirely undefined, and therefore from a cognitive standpoint -- having something to do with reality as understood by the human mind -- it is entirely meaningless. Valid usually means that given the premises the conclusion follows. But Objectivism draws a distinction between valid and logical. If one is not talking about anything in reality, then it has no meaning and can be thrown out. And evidently, Bill, the Maverick Philosopher, does not recognize that the arbitrary is a third option that is neither true nor false.

I would only use the term "valid" when discussing deductive arguments. I would mean and use "valid" to describe a deductive argument that is characterized by logically proper deductive reasoning, such as the argument I presented about twinzigs. It would be an assessment that is irrespective of truth, because it would be an evaluation of argumentative form. Rand seems to be defining logic so that Logic only applies to the realm of inductive reasoning, because she says that Logic is the "art of non-contradictory identification." If such is the case, Rand appears to leave no room for deductive logic, because deductive reasoning is reasoning apart from (or seperate from) identification, if I'm not mistaken. That's why deduction is useless in and of itself as a means of establishing truth. However, once the truth of an argument's premises are inductively established, then deductive logic seems to present itself as a sound form of reason. The study of economics, for instance, is typically (depending on what economist you talk to) founded on inductive premises which are used to deduce higher level truths.

To go back: You said that if "twinzig is entirely undefined", then the argument is "entirely meaningless." I agree with you. However, I am not talking about an evaluation of meaning, I am talking about an evaluation of proper (or improper) deductive reasoning. For example, a statement with essentially no identification in reality:

All members of group A like B

C is a member of group A

Therefore, C likes B.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks to me like Objectivists, including Harry Binswanger and Travis Norsen have now been "politely" dismissed from the discussion by Bill Vallicella.

I saw that. I cannot imagine how anyone reading that will not come away thinking that Vallicella is being quite evasive and dismissive. Even Neil Parille, who blogs against Rand, told me in a private email that "Vallicella is being rather heavy-handed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks to me like Objectivists, including Harry Binswanger and Travis Norsen have now been "politely" dismissed from the discussion by Bill Vallicella.

Yes, in this statement: "It was clear to some from the beginning, and is increasingly clear to me, that there is just no point in discussions with Objectivists."

In other words, there is no point in having a discussion with people who want to bring facts into the argument. Notice what he is doing when he talks about the square circle; he is saying it is self-contradictory due to the definition of "circle" and "square" but he never gets down to the facts of reality. His whole manner of argumentation is a floating abstraction not tied to the senses and not tied to reality.

But he did make a comment about Miss Rand's definition of logic, and basically he says that it rules out modal logic. It doesn't actually rule out deductive reasoning, it just says that for the deductive reasoning to be logical by her understanding then it must be tied to a non-contradictory identification of something in reality.

This has been a very valuable exercise as to why Objectivism has been rejected by academia. In short, they are dismissive of having their arguments tied to reality. The discussion is at loggerheads because one side deals in floating abstractions while the other side wants to point to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's made another post related to Objectivism, though without mentioning it directly, on the law of non-contradiction and the retort against those who assert that contradictions exist. Notice how he protects the assertion by first dividing it from the asserter, and then by creating a separate category of consistency called "performative consistency" which is supposed to deal with the actions of the asserter independently of the assertion. In the end we're left with "assertion" having no relation to its definition, "a statement or declaration", because we have divorced it from the being making the declaration. By examining it in the abstract, disconnected from reality, it's lost any meaning or purpose.

His goal, of course, is to be able to say, "you have merely disparaged the asserter - this assertion still exists!" without actually affirming the assertion; he wants to assert without asserting.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By examining it in the abstract, disconnected from reality, it's lost any meaning or purpose.

I'm not sure what his goal is, but notice that he is not affirming this axiomatic statement by reference to reality. In other words, all axioms are verified by observation of existence. It's not just an issue that to deny it is to affirm it, but rather the principle was derived via observation -- i.e. one cannot observe a ball being all read and all not red at the same time and in the same respect, for this would deny the axiom of the law of identity -- that a thing is what it is and only what it is.

Again, I think it is floating abstractions at work.

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...