One Fallacy of Objectivism — Part II

[Plasmatic]

AisA said:

Interesting. But it clearly confuses metaphysics with epistemology as if what a thing is is the only thing we can think about it. When we think of the concept 'apple' we don't only think of one apple.

Oh yes, that is exactly what Frank is doing. I just wanted to point out that he may not have invented such a notion.

[A is A]

AisA said:

Oh yes, that is exactly what Frank is doing. I just wanted to point out that he may not have invented such a notion.

Let's not speculate on what Frank is doing.  He seems to be speculating on what Rand said.  

[Plasmatic]

AisA said:

Let's not speculate on what Frank is doing. He seems to be speculating on what Rand said.

Are you kidding? My comment pertains directly to what he has said, not what motivates him. You yourself said:

Epistemology is not the study of neuroscience. How the brain processes concept or percepts is not part of her theory

Im saying that I agree with the above and that constitutes mixing metaphysics with epistemology. Whether or not Frank is mixing Hume's same error with his own is a seperate issue which I only said "perhaps" concerning. I made an identification of a contextual possibility based on similarity. If you want to call that "speculation" then I suggest you evaluate how you differentiate speculation from the evidentiary category of the possible. Edited April 6, 2014 by Plasmatic

[A is A]

I was only attempting to be sarcastic about his comment and state of mind.  I wasn't implying anything about what you said. Sorry if you took it that way.

[Plasmatic]

No problem.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

[What] counts for a 'true' concept versus a 'false' one insofar as all concepts derive from the process of reasoning?

. . . . .

Truth is the recognition of reality. (This is known as the correspondence theory of truth.) The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect.

-Philosophical Detection

"Truth" is awareness of reality.

 

Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action—the content of awareness, and the action of consciousness in regard to that content.

-Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

 

Consciousness, as a state of awareness, is not a passive state, but an active process that consists of two essentials: differentiation and integration.

-ITOE

 

Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information.

-Kant versus Sullivan

Conscious awareness is an activity by which multiple contents, ultimately composed of sensations (which are self-evident), are either integrated or differentiated.  Sensory content itself cannot be "true" or "false" because, as our primary link to reality, it is the very standard of truth.

But any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.

 

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.

-The Metaphysical versus the Manmade

"Reality" is the interpretation of sensations as being caused by something quantifiable, predictable and open to your comprehension- but not subject to your opinions.

The axiom of existence is simply the knowledge that "sensory evidence" is evidence.

 

This is the significance of the fact that reality is non-contradictory.  Epistemologically, this tells us that we must infer reality from our own senses- and that our inferences cannot be contradictory.

Now, as some skeptics have been so eager to mention (Popper, Hume) there is more than one way to interpret any given set of observations without contradiction.  And that much is true.  In fact, there is nothing empirical which could ever conceivably contradict the possibility of an after-life; such a belief is technically (implications and corollaries aside) non-contradictory.  However:

 

[The] agnostic demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive. “It’s up to you,” he says, “to prove that the fourth moon of Jupiter did not cause your sex life and that it was not a result of your previous incarnation as the Pharaoh of Egypt.”

-The Philosophy of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff

To treat evidence as epistemologically equal to the absence of evidence, and proof as equal to not-proof, is a Reification of the Zero- and furthermore, it prohibits the very possibility of certainty in knowledge.  And for all of the infinite non-contradictory theories that are possible, only a tiny subset are also unambiguously supported, empirically.

And the truth may change as new evidence is found; today's truth may well be proven wrong tomorrow.  But just as evidence is different from non-evidence, knowledge is different from the hypothetical possibility of knowledge.

You cannot count your black swans before you find them.

 

So any proposition or theory is true if:

1. It neither contradicts sensory evidence nor any logically prior knowledge (which is why the hierarchy of knowledge is important).
2. It is actually supported by logically prior information and/or evidence.
3. It is the simplest and best-supported possible theory.

• If there is no other non-contradictory and non-arbitrary theory for any given observations, the one remaining belief is not only true; it is a certain truth.

. . . . .

Now, if you respond that everything I explained is simply "common sense" and that no rational person could possibly disagree with it, you would be right.  That's the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.

 

So your alternatives are to accept Rand's ideas and continue using them, with a newfound mastery of what you've been doing all along- or to reject Rand's ideas and remove yourself from the meme pool.

And on that note, live long and prosper! 

[frank harley]

Bill said:

Nope...conceptualization is not a passive process done by the "brain" for Ms. Rand. The "bundleing" is an active process of volitional, conditional method. The science that answers the question of how we form concepts is epistemology, not neuroscience. You are conflating the two, ergo your "brain" comment.

Well, I obviously agree that epistemology cannot be reductable to neuro sci.

 

My point, however, is that in default of critera as to how 'correct' bundleing of perceptions is done in order to create concepts that are 'true', Rands's account sounds like...neurosci. perhaps, for the sqake of argument her story as been amended by other of whom i'm not aware.

 

I likewise agree that volition plays a huge role in not only how we bundle,, but also what gets bundled to begin with. Kany said as much.

 

His dogmatic slumber, as it were, was to have assumed in a Baconian sort of way that scientific-grade sensory data  was automatically induced into causal statements. In passing, this indicates that no real 'epistemology would be needed: we sense, we process, we just form the right concepts,and that's that.

 

FH

[frank harley]

. . . . .

"Truth" is awareness of reality.

 

Conscious awareness is an activity by which multiple contents, ultimately composed of sensations (which are self-evident), are either integrated or differentiated.  Sensory content itself cannot be "true" or "false" because, as our primary link to reality, it is the very standard of truth.

But any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.

 

"Reality" is the interpretation of sensations as being caused by something quantifiable, predictable and open to your comprehension- but not subject to your opinions.

The axiom of existence is simply the knowledge that "sensory evidence" is evidence.

 

This is the significance of the fact that reality is non-contradictory.  Epistemologically, this tells us that we must infer reality from our own senses- and that our inferences cannot be contradictory.

Now, as some skeptics have been so eager to mention (Popper, Hume) there is more than one way to interpret any given set of observations without contradiction.  And that much is true.  In fact, there is nothing empirical which could ever conceivably contradict the possibility of an after-life; such a belief is technically (implications and corollaries aside) non-contradictory.  However:

 

To treat evidence as epistemologically equal to the absence of evidence, and proof as equal to not-proof, is a Reification of the Zero- and furthermore, it prohibits the very possibility of certainty in knowledge.  And for all of the infinite non-contradictory theories that are possible, only a tiny subset are also unambiguously supported, empirically.

And the truth may change as new evidence is found; today's truth may well be proven wrong tomorrow.  But just as evidence is different from non-evidence, knowledge is different from the hypothetical possibility of knowledge.

You cannot count your black swans before you find them.

 

So any proposition or theory is true if:

1. It neither contradicts sensory evidence nor any logically prior knowledge (which is why the hierarchy of knowledge is important).
2. It is actually supported by logically prior information and/or evidence.
3. It is the simplest and best-supported possible theory.

• If there is no other non-contradictory and non-arbitrary theory for any given observations, the one remaining belief is not only true; it is a certain truth.

. . . . .

Now, if you respond that everything I explained is simply "common sense" and that no rational person could possibly disagree with it, you would be right.  That's the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.

 

So your alternatives are to accept Rand's ideas and continue using them, with a newfound mastery of what you've been doing all along- or to reject Rand's ideas and remove yourself from the meme pool.

And on that note, live long and prosper! 

 >>any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.<<,

 

The point of having an 'epistemology' is to distinguish which one is true. I don't see arnd as having offered any criteria for this.

 

>>>Reality" is the interpretation of sensations as being caused by something quantifiable,<<<

 

We all know that what is is that which is either caused or causal. Aristotle has been around for a long time; we don't need Rand to tell us this.

 

Aristotelian accounts were challenged in these gronds, in any case: many contradicting cauusal accounts are given, only which one is true. Again, epistemology is spozed to indicate which, noyt offer us a primer in Aristotle.

 

>>>the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.<<<

 

That's my point in having brought in neuro sci: it's what everyone does because we're all rigged this way.

But this isn't 'epistemology', which accounts for a) differences in reason(s) and which reason is correct, assuming, again, all reasonable candiidates are causal?

 

FH

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 >>any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.<<,

 

The point of having an 'epistemology' is to distinguish which one is true. I don't see Rand as having offered any criteria for this.

 

Whichever account explains all relevant observations without contradiction, and in the least cognitive steps (of all valid theories), is the best hypothesis.  Whichever hypotheses have no valid alternatives are undeniable truths.

That this is a summary of what I have already said, is one such truth.

 

 >>>the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.<<<

 

That's my point in having brought in neuro sci: it's what everyone does because we're all rigged this way.

But this isn't 'epistemology', which accounts for a) differences in reason(s) and which reason is correct, assuming, again, all reasonable candiidates are causal?

Any differences of opinion result from ignorance, either intentional or not.

Honest errors of ignorance stem from the fact that, at any given time, the range of observations available to each person cannot be exhaustive.  Nobody knows everything; when you do not know something important (for any given theory), the absence of that knowledge will cause an error of ignorance.

Intentional ignorance stems from the fact that knowledge does not exist in a normative vacuum.  We feel things about various facts that we know.  And when such evaluations are given higher priority than the accuracy of your knowledge, you're prone to wilfully refuse to learn.

This is called "evasion".

 

Errors of ignorance and evasion jointly account for every difference of opinion that can be found between anyone, at any time.

. . . . .

 

To integrate all information which is relevant to any given question, in the simplest non-contradictory way possible, is the most effective method of finding the true answer.

There is no guarantee that you are not missing some crucial part of the answer, at any given time, and that's just the way it is.  You must make educated guesses, by virtue of being human, and so long as you must do so the best method is the one I have described.

 

Now, I have given you (in condensed format, even) every important thing I know about Objectivist epistemology.  If you do not consider this sufficient for your purposes then I can offer you nothing else.

 

Live long and prosper.

[frank harley]

Whichever account explains all relevant observations without contradiction, and in the least cognitive steps (of all valid theories), is the best hypothesis.  Whichever hypotheses have no valid alternatives are undeniable truths.

That this is a summary of what I have already said, is one such truth.

 

Any differences of opinion result from ignorance, either intentional or not.

Honest errors of ignorance stem from the fact that, at any given time, the range of observations available to each person cannot be exhaustive.  Nobody knows everything; when you do not know something important (for any given theory), the absence of that knowledge will cause an error of ignorance.

Intentional ignorance stems from the fact that knowledge does not exist in a normative vacuum.  We feel things about various facts that we know.  And when such evaluations are given higher priority than the accuracy of your knowledge, you're prone to wilfully refuse to learn.

This is called "evasion".

 

Errors of ignorance and evasion jointly account for every difference of opinion that can be found between anyone, at any time.

. . . . .

 

To integrate all information which is relevant to any given question, in the simplest non-contradictory way possible, is the most effective method of finding the true answer.

There is no guarantee that you are not missing some crucial part of the answer, at any given time, and that's just the way it is.  You must make educated guesses, by virtue of being human, and so long as you must do so the best method is the one I have described.

 

Now, I have given you (in condensed format, even) every important thing I know about Objectivist epistemology.  If you do not consider this sufficient for your purposes then I can offer you nothing else.

 

Live long and prosper.

You're assuming that there is only one possible explanation that does not involve contradiction, ignorance, or evasion.

 

Yet the practice of science refutes your assumption on a daily basis.

 

*As what passes as contradictions are those statements of one's rivals, in most cases an informed outsider is unable to refereeas to  which party is the more contradictive.

 

* As the knowledger base is shared, no one can be said to be 'ignorant".

 

* All parties act openny, and without evasion.

 

So again, the matter of truth-belief justification remains up in the air, in so far as Rand wrote of 'epistemology'. All she's said are that some people are ignorant, some contradict themselves, and some are evasive.

 

This is as helpful as opposing welfare on the grounds of a welfare Cadillac.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

*As what passes as contradictions are those statements of one's rivals, in most cases an informed outsider is unable to referee as to  which party is the more contradictive.

 

* As the knowledge base is shared, no one can be said to be 'ignorant".

 

* All parties act openly, and without evasion.

1. This is an appeal to authority (and the authority of a referee, at that).
2. Just as the prior assertion, this is using "knowledge" on a strictly comparative basis; my knowledge versus your knowledge; without reference to reality.
3. This is simply an arbitrary assertion, taken out of context and treated as if it were self-evidently true.

So again, the matter of truth-belief justification remains up in the air, in so far as Rand wrote of 'epistemology'. All she's said are that some people are ignorant, some contradict themselves, and some are evasive.

This means that "epistemology" is the study of why other people's opinions are wrong.

 

Yet the practice of science refutes your assumption on a daily basis.

Until you reexamine your own concept of "truth" you have no right to slander its champions, the way this statement does.

The "practice of science" is predicated on the belief that there is only one correct answer; that the theory of Relativity does not have equal validity with the myths of the ancient gods (or the modern ones).

 

If you have the slightest shred of respect for those who have made modern life possible then you will think on that.

[frank harley]

 

1. This is an appeal to authority (and the authority of a referee, at that).
2. Just as the prior assertion, this is using "knowledge" on a strictly comparative basis; my knowledge versus your knowledge; without reference to reality.
3. This is simply an arbitrary assertion, taken out of context and treated as if it were self-evidently true.

This means that "epistemology" is the study of why other people's opinions are wrong.

 

Until you reexamine your own concept of "truth" you have no right to slander its champions, the way this statement does.

The "practice of science" is predicated on the belief that there is only one correct answer; that the theory of Relativity does not have equal validity with the myths of the ancient gods (or the modern ones).

 

If you have the slightest shred of respect for those who have made modern life possible then you will think on that.

 

My respect for the practice of science was given in my three statements listed above. All practitioners of science appeal to authority, reference reality, and take prior scientific knowledge to be self-evidently true.

 

That being said, again, the epistemological standard would reside elsewhere...

[theestevearnold]

we have succeeded in clarifying the Randian-distinction; i.e., the distinction obscurely labeled by Objectivists

I am not part of your "we".

Mark Twain said, "If you see an adverb, kill it." What you called, "obscurely labeled" is vividly apparent to a man who accepts that he has the faculty of volition. If you are some sort of determinist, please have the decency to aknowledge the clarity of the Objectivist (my) position. And please don't call us Randians;:that's for Ron Paul kids who raise a raucous next to anarcho-capitalists, who usually don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

You seem smart enough to understand the distinction between the man-made and the metaphysical. Back to Mark...Sam Clemens believed that all human actions are reflexes and can't be otherwise....So did a Skinner....Twain retracted later in life... so it's you and BF....bad company.. lame party.....I'm outta here.

[frank harley]

Two points, please:

 

1) Hume was the one who first derived a strongly-stated 'is /  ought' distinction. Hence the famous fork of his name. Volition and imagination belong on one prong, sensory data on the other.

 

2) Yes, if everything in Randi's epistemology is a 'concept', then there is no way of distinguishing the material reality of a baseball bat from the tree from which it was cut. Searle, for one, discusses social realities on a sliding scale as to what's mind-dependent, and what's not.

 

In passing, Locke clearly had the same problem as Rand. If everything (as he admitted to Berkeley) was ultimately drived from thought, you need a way of distinguishing thugh of material from thought of ideas.

 

As he failed in this respect, Berkeley got the better of him; thought qua thought is obviously the default position.

[dream_weaver]

frank harley,

Since this is counting on others ability to recognize the distinction between a baseball bat from the tree from whence it was cut, why is this not possible if everything in Rand's epistemology are 'concepts'? Is it relying on Locke's proffered substratum to keep the grip end's relationship to the business end of the lumber and separate from the remainder of the thick wooden stem it came from?

[frank harley]

frank harley,

Since this is counting on others ability to recognize the distinction between a baseball bat from the tree from whence it was cut, why is this not possible if everything in Rand's epistemology are 'concepts'? Is it relying on Locke's proffered substratum to keep the grip end's relationship to the business end of the lumber and separate from the remainder of the thick wooden stem it came from?

Dream Weaver,

 

I was intentionally a bit oblique in my last post. 'Baseball bat' refers to a socuial construct that relies on the knowledge of a game' trees and wood are not--rather, material realities.

 

A complete epistemology in any real sense would afford us the opportunity to distinguish social constructs from material reality, in so far as the former are  said to be 'mind dependent, Calling both mind dependencies and independents 'concepts' fogs the issue.

 

I cited lock e because the problem is not particular to rand. I cited Searle's solution of a 'sliding scale' as as solution that admits that no clear distinction exists between material and thought-created onjects.

[Plasmatic]

I do like Searle's "word to world" and "world to word" distinction. Likewise, his discussion of speech acts that "make it the case by declaring it to be so".... Still digging into this though....

[Harrison Danneskjold]

A baseball bat, by any other name, would hurt the same. Rand called this the "Primacy of Existence".

Live long and prosper.