dealing with uncertainty.

[Guest ZAC D.]

I found this article on dealing with uncertainty. People love to try and over-engineer outcomes, especially government officials. Yes, there is Newton's third law and you can know what consequences a specific action will have (Investor Jim Rogers made fortunes with this understanding), but there are so many variables and so much uncertainty. Is it best to just set up the framework/mindset to deal with uncertainty? “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security."

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Best-Ways-of-Dealing-With-Uncertainty&id=1974978

I was woundering what everyone here thought about this article.

[Marc K.]

[...] but there are so many variables and so much uncertainty. Is it best to just set up the framework/mindset to deal with uncertainty? “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security."

This is pure skepticism. These are bromides meant to paralyze. More than that, this mentality is the predominant Zeitgeist which is destroying children's minds.

The only proper reply to “uncertainty is the only certainty there is" is to ask "are you certain?"

The other self-contradictory incantation found in the article is "nothing in life is certain" which is another way of saying "there are no absolutes" which, again, can be properly dismissed out of hand by saying "do you mean to say there are absolutely no absolutes?".

This article accepts the skeptics motto and then tries to provide logical guidance, but they shouldn't have accepted the premise since it isn't true. We can be certain of many many things today. I am certain that 1 + 1 = 2, I am certain that the sky is blue and that the grass is green and that something causes these to be true, I am certain that existence exists, I am certain that I will weigh less on the moon, I am certain that the earth is round, rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, I am certain that I am typing right now, I am certain that I love my mother and she loves me.

Your orientation should be toward what is certain, not toward what is uncertain. How can you set up a mindset to deal with what you are not certain about? You know nothing about what is uncertain. Human relationships can sometimes be uncertain and so you should either not deal with someone you are uncertain about or limit your exposure. Like, don't make a business deal on a handshake, get a contract and then you can be certain that if a problem arises your bases are covered.

What other things in your life are you so uncertain about?

[Mindy]

Unless I missed part, it is a very brief and spotty treatment of the issue.

Uncertainty is not a large part of everyday life. Weather, traffic, stock market, moods of the people we are around, the soup du jour, these are the chief uncertainties. We have arranged the world to keep important things from being a matter of chance, as much as possible. It goes with being independent.

The article speaks as if uncertainty were an affliction. Uncertainty itself is a signal to get more information, and/or to plan further.

If major factors in life are constantly uncertain, it means you aren't on top of things, haven't made the major decisions and put a workable plan into effect. Schemes and machinations are prone to failure. Sensible plans aren't.

If it is your own feelings, choices, decisions, etc. that are changeable and unpredictable, that's a different matter.

This article did not state a coherent approach to uncertainties, and certainly not a philosophically astute one. I believe you'll find that in Objectivism it is the two issues of using reason and taking a long-range view of your life that address being beset by uncertainties.

-- Mindy

[Guest ZAC D.]

Your all input was helpful but I still don't think I understand so let me give a further example.

It was once certain the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

So wouldn't it be best to remain skeptical? I'm really trying to understand why

skepticism isn't something we should consider using especially before all the infromation is provided.

"If it is your own feelings, choices, decisions, etc. that are changeable and unpredictable, that's a different matter."

Can you further explain?

[RationalBiker]

What you need to understand is that certainty exists within a context. The fact that some people in the past were certain about particular things which later turned out to be wrong does not mean that nothing else can be known with certainty.

Human beings absolutely need water to survive throughout a normal human lifespan.

Do you think there is any reason to speculate that statement cannot be certain?

[Marc K.]

So wouldn't it be best to remain skeptical? I'm really trying to understand why

skepticism isn't something we should consider using especially before all the infromation is provided.

Tell us something that you want to remain skeptical about and why.

Are you uncertain of any of the certainties I listed (except the last)?

[Guest ZAC D.]

The fact that some people in the past were certain about particular things which later turned out to be wrong does not mean that nothing else can be known with certainty.

Doesn't that tell us that in some cases not all that skepticism/uncertainty has its place?

What you need to understand is that certainty exists within a context.

Are you saying it is ok to be uncertain a about somethings? Maybe put somethings in a possible or probable catagory until more infromation is known?

"Tell us something that you want to remain skeptical about and why."

I am certain that the sky is blue and that the grass is green

What about color blind people who can't be certain of this?

I am certain that the earth is round

But the earth isn't a perfect oblate spheroid.

I am certain that I love my mother and she loves me.

How do you know she really loves you? You can't see inside her mind.

As for my example of what I am skeptical of... Free Will vs Natural Determinism. quantum mechanics and string theory.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Thanks for helping me wrap my mind around some of this.

[RationalBiker]

Doesn't that tell us that in some cases not all that skepticism/uncertainty has its place?

Of course there are things we are uncertain about. However, the skeptic wants you to be uncertain about EVERYTHING.

What about color blind people who can't be certain of this?

Color blind people still have the capacity to learn and understand the laws of physics dealing with light reflection and refraction.

But the earth isn't a perfect oblate spheroid.

Are you certain of that?

Being of a spherical shape does not have to mean "a perfect oblate spheroid". The larger point is that spherical is a much better and more accurate descriptor of the planet earth than is flat.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Of course there are things we are uncertain about. However, the skeptic wants you to be uncertain about EVERYTHING.

You are saying we should not live life by arbitrary possiblities but by possiblities based on evidence? ie. We can't just claim everything in life is uncertain because we feel like it? That would make sense.

Color blind people still have the capacity to learn and understand the laws of physics dealing with light reflection and refraction.

The following is how peikoff described it would you agree?

A difference in sensory form among perceivers is precisely that: it is a difference in the form of perceiving the same objects, the same one reality. Such a difference does not pertain to cognitive content and does not indicate any disagreement among the parties. The sense of a man with normal vision, to take the standard example, do not contradict those of color-blind man. When the former says about some object, "It is red" he must in reason mean by the statement: "it is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it in the form of red color." that is true; that is what it is. Similarly, if the color blind man says "it is gray", he has to mean: "it is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I preceive it in the form of gray color." That is also true; that is what it is. nethier statement conflicts with the other. Both men are perceiving that which is and are doing so in a specific form. Nor will these two men or any other perceiver with an intellect come to different conclusions about the nature of the object. in this respect, differences in sensory form do not matter. They have no consequence in regard to the content of cognition. The role of the senses is to give us the start of cognitive process; the first evidence of existence, including the first evidence of similarities and differences among concretes. On this basis, we organize our perceptual material, we abstract, classify, conceptualize. Thereafter, we operate on the conceptual level, making inductions, formulating theories, analyzing complexities, intergrating ever greater ranges of data; we thereby discover step by step the underlying structures and laws of reality.This whole development of is not, however, affected by the form of such sensory awareness. As long as one graps the requisite relationships in some form, the rest is the work of the mind, not the senses. In such work, difference pertaining to the form of the intitial data have no ultimate consequences. That is why men with normal vision and men who are color-blind ( or plain blind) do not end up with different theories of physics. The same would apply to a physicist from outer space, even if his sense organs were radically different from ours. Both species would be perceiving the same reality, and (leaving aside errors) would draw conclusion accordingly. Species with different sense organs gain from perception different kinds (and/or amounts) of evidence. But assuming that a species has organs capable of the requisite range of discrimination and the mind to interpret what it perceives, such differences in sensory evidence are merely different starting points leading to the same ultimate conclusions. Imagine to use a deliberately bizarre example that a species of thinking atoms; they have some kind of sensory apparatus but, given their size, no eye or tactile organs and therefore no color or touch perception. Such creatures, let us say, perceive other atoms directly, as we do people; they perceive in some form we cannot imagine. For them, the fact that matter is atomic is not a theory reached by inference, but a self-evidency. Such atomic perception, however, is in no way more vaild than our own. Since these atoms function on a submicroscopic scale of awareness, they do not discover through their senses the kind of evidence that we take for granted. We have to infer atoms, but they have to infer macroscopic objects, such as a table or the Empire State Building, which are far too large for their receptive capacity to register. It requires a process of sophisticated theory-formation for them to find out that, in reality, the whirling atoms they perceive are bound into various combinations, making up objects too vast to be directly grasped. Although the starting points are very different, the cognitive upshot in both cases is the same, even though a genius among them is required to reach the conclusions obvious to the morons among us, and vice versa. No type of sense perception can register everything. A is A, and perceptual apparatus is limited. By virtue of being able directly to discriminate one aspect of reality, a conciousness cannot discriminate some other aspect that would require a different kind of sense organs. Whatever facts the senses do register, however, are facts. And these facts are what lead a mind to eventually to the rest of its knowledge.

Are you certain of that?

Cheeky. Yeah, I am. Point made.

Being of a spherical shape does not have to mean "a perfect oblate spheroid". The larger point is that spherical is a much better and more accurate descriptor of the planet earth than is flat.

Makes sense.

I would like to know if I'm right about one more thing. The following is a quote from Ayn rand...

All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.

Does this mean a definition can be exspanded upon if it does not contradict it's prior primitive definition? ie. We can keep on exspanding upon our knowledge of said definition so long as no contradiction occurs?

Thanks to everyone who helped answer my newbie questions.

[JayR]

Reading your questions so far, I think this book was written for you.

j..

[Trebor]

The following is how peikoff described it would you agree?

I remember that description from Dr. Peikoff, but I don't remember where it was that he stated it. Is it in print somewhere, or is it from one of his taped lectures?

Does this mean a definition can be exspanded upon if it does not contradict it's prior primitive definition? ie. We can keep on exspanding upon our knowledge of said definition so long as no contradiction occurs?

With the expansion of our knowledge, a definition may need to be refined. It is not the definition that expands, or our knowledge of the definition that expands, but rather that it's our knowledge which expands, and that expansion of our knowledge may require that we refine our definition.

Man is defined as the "rational animal." Were we to discover the proverbial, rational spider from Mars (or wherever), then "rational" would no longer uniquely distinguish man from all other existents, and therefore it would no longer serve as the Distinguishing Characteristic for the concept "man." "Rational" would still be a characteristic of man, but it would no longer be uniquely distinctive to man. Given our newly acquired knowledge of the existence of another rational animal, we would have to refine our definition of "man."

Edited for clarity.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Trebor

[Marc K.]

What about color blind people who can't be certain of this?

They can be certain -- give them a spectrometer.

How do you know she really loves you? You can't see inside her mind.

All the evidence points in one direction, there is no evidence pointing away from that conclusion. I suppose, if you wanted, I could enumerate it. Besides, I don't think someone could fake it for my whole life and me not notice.

As for my example of what I am skeptical of... Free Will vs Natural Determinism. quantum mechanics and string theory.

QM and ST are good things to be skeptical about, you may even consider that neither is correct.

There are pages and pages of interesting and heated debates on free will here, you can do a search. But really it isn't a tough thing to be certain about since it is something that is open to your direct perception, which has no ability to fool you, and your introspection.

Does this mean a definition can be exspanded upon if it does not contradict it's prior primitive definition? ie. We can keep on exspanding upon our knowledge of said definition so long as no contradiction occurs?

Valid definitions are not contradicted by other valid definitions. All definition and all knowledge is contextual; meaning, that you can't define something beyond what you know about it. So a child wouldn't define a man to be "the rational animal" since he doesn't know what "rational" means but defining man as an animal doesn't contradict a later definition.

The contextual nature of knowledge derives from the fact that all knowledge is related and those relations form a context. So when I say "water boils at 212 degrees" what I actually mean is that "on earth, under normal atmospheric conditions, at sea level, distilled water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit." And all of those conditions are the context at which I know that water boils. My original statement would not be true if I was on a mountain top or if I was using a celsius thermometer.

[mrocktor]

Does this mean a definition can be exspanded upon if it does not contradict it's prior primitive definition? ie. We can keep on exspanding upon our knowledge of said definition so long as no contradiction occurs?

To use the tired flat earth example, the Earth is essentially flat within the context of your immediate surroundings and what you can perceive unaided by technology.

In the context of a civilization with no satellite photos, no airplanes or baloons, no looking glass or telescope - and no one who paid attention to the very slight curve of the horizon at the shoreline of a large body of water... within that context the flatness of the Earth is true. And in fact, limited to the range of action that this context permits, operating on the assumption that the Earth is flat will have no negative effects.

Expanding one context of knowledge does not invalidate previous knowledge - it only puts it in its place. For instance: relativity does not invalidate the application of Newton's laws in our daily existence. Of course you can actually be wrong too - if you made a mistake in your previous context.

[Guest ZAC D.]

remember that description from Dr. Peikoff, but I don't remember where it was that he stated it. Is it in print somewhere, or is it from one of his taped lectures?

It came from the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

With the expansion of our knowledge, a definition may need to be refined. It is not the definition that expands, or our knowledge of the definition that expands, but rather that it's our knowledge which expands, and that expansion of our knowledge may require that we refine our definition.Valid definitions are not contradicted by other valid definitions. All definition and all knowledge is contextual; meaning, that you can't define something beyond what you know about it. So a child wouldn't define a man to be "the rational animal" since he doesn't know what "rational" means but defining man as an animal doesn't contradict a later definition.

Let me see If I got this straight.

To a child's knowledge a Man is just an animal but as the child grows up aquiring cognative ability he learns more about man such as he is a rational Animal? ie. Our knowledge expands. Can you give me a example of what a contradiction would be?

So when I say "water boils at 212 degrees" what I actually mean is that "on earth, under normal atmospheric conditions, at sea level, distilled water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit." And all of those conditions are the context at which I know that water boils. My original statement would not be true if I was on a mountain top or if I was using a celsius thermometer.

So the certainty of a claim all depends on context? I get it.

"in fact, limited to the range of action that this context permits, operating on the assumption that the Earth is flat will have no negative effects."

What about all those people who thought the earth was flat and didn't travel far because of this notion? Didn't that assumption affect their thinking? I understood the rest of what you said, but I guess I don't fully understand what you mean here.

Reading your questions so far, I think this book was written for you.

I already planned on buying this book.

Thanks again to everyone for helping me out.

Edited July 31, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Marc K.]

Hey ZAC D.,

Some friendly advice --

I know it may seem academic but it is really important for accuracy's sake and to facilitate good communication that you always attribute your quotes. That includes not just us here on this forum but also whenever you quote an author like Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. You should provide the work cited, the author and the page number where the quoted material can be found.

I see that you have wrapped quoted material in quote tags and that is good, but you should also attribute those quotes so people know who you are talking to. The citation is provided for you when you hit the "Reply" button at the bottom of the post you are answering.

Some people choose to only answer one person per post but you can answer multiple people in one post by hitting the "Multiquote" button on the bottom of every post you wish to respond to.

Also, please be careful when you edit these quotes. It seems you have mixed quoted material from me and at least one other poster in the second quote box of your last post. This tends to be irksome.

Welcome to the forum and happy posting.

Marc

[Guest ZAC D.]

I wasn't sure if people really cared about academic professionalism.

Now that I know they do I will be more professional next time.

I will make sure to clearify whom I'm quoting next time.

Sorry for mixing you up with Trebor. I didn't mean to do that.

Thanks for helping me figure all of this out. I think I got it now.

Edited July 31, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Trebor]

It came from the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Thank you. I've loaned out my copy of OPAR, so I couldn't check it to see if it was there. I do think I remember actually hearing Dr. Peikoff give that description in one of his taped lecture series, perhaps his early "The Philosophy of Objectivism."

Let me see If I got this straight.

To a child's knowledge a Man is just an animal but as the child grows up aquiring cognative ability he learns more about man such as he is a rational Animal?

The best source for understanding Miss Rand's theory of concept formation is her book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The book includes not only her presentation of her theory, but also Dr. Peikoff's "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" and excerpts of discussions from a workshop Miss Rand gave on her theory.

If you don't have a copy of that book, until you do get a copy, you can gets a bit of the gist of Miss Rand's theory of concepts and concept formation by reading some topics in the online Lexicon

Definitions (See the related links at the end of the entry, "See Also")

"just an animal" would not be sufficient, as the definition for the concept "man," even for a young child. A definition requires both a Conceptual Common Denominator and a Distinguishing Characteristic.

"just an animal" wouldn't distinguish man from dogs or cats or whichever other animals the child may be familiar with, and which he would have to be familiar with in order to have grasped or formed the concept "animal." It doesn't distinguish this animal (man) from other animals (dogs, cats, etc.)

Again, the best source if Miss Rand's book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Trebor

[Guest ZAC D.]

One last qestion before I do buy the book, So I should of just said... To a child's knowledge a Man is an animal but as the child grows up aquiring cognative ability he learns more about man such as he is a rational Animal?

Would that have been more proper?

[Marc K.]

Sorry ZAC, I was very imprecise in my usage before and that is not a good idea around here. Be very accurate and precise in the wording you use because if you aren't, then you'll get called on it -- and this is a very good thing, it is justice and honesty at their best here and it serves all of us well.

Trebor is correct: defining a concept is a science and Ayn Rand has provided us with the proper methodology as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE), which is a great book, I highly recommend it.

Essentially you need a group of things that all share a similarity (conceptual common denominator or CCD), which is the genus of the definition and you need a characteristic that distinguishes two or more items in the group from the rest, which is the differentia of the definition. All definitions should have a genus and a differentia: how the thing you are defining is similar to other things and how it is different from them.

So "man" cannot be defined as an animal, that is the characteristic that makes him similar to other things, now, how is he different: he is rational. This is the ultimate philosophic definition of "man" because it names his essential characteristic (which is also very important to definition). But it doesn't contradict other valid definitions which might be used in other contexts like: talking animal, building animal, planning animal, counting animal ...etc.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Thanks Marc K I finally get it. You explained genus and a differentia perfectly.

Thanks to everyone else who helped me figure this out.

I look forward to reading the books mentioned and improving my understanding of objectivism.

If I have any more questions after doing the research I will be sure to come back here to test

my doubts.