Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

No-one Denies that "A is A". Why Is It Such a Huge Theme in Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

HM, what you are pointing at is actually the practice of the "Hypothetical-deductive" method most often taken as the default philosophy of science. Likewise,  Popper refused to engage in the questioning of where a given premise or concept came from and chose to claim "we never no what we are talking about".... 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

HM, what you are pointing at is actually the practice of the "Hypothetical-deductive" method most often taken as the default philosophy of science.

I was thinking more about the wrong way to do it: which is the consideration that all different "if"s are simultaneously possible. You shouldn't hold a contradiction for long. Consider what agnostics and desperate theists would say: Given the lack of evidence for God, existence and absence of God are both possible. They're clinging to a contradiction.

For the right way to come up with a hypothesis: you need to look at the issue from all sorts of angles and form concepts. Then by the time you make a hypothesis, you're almost certain that it's true. Psychologically, the hypothesis should feel like an epiphany, uniting all the sundry reasons and logic you used previously. Most people are as clueless about the hypothesis they make as the person who has just heard about their hypothesis 5 minutes ago.  They develop a belief that they can discover facts of reality without a process of integration. Then they cling onto this A is non-A assertion (that all of the alternatives are possible), once their inability to discover facts of reality become more and more obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, human_murda said:

I was thinking more about the wrong way to do it: which is the consideration that all different "if"s are simultaneously possible. You shouldn't hold a contradiction for long. Consider what agnostics and desperate theists would say: Given the lack of evidence for God, existence and absence of God are both possible. They're clinging to a contradiction.

To say that it is possible that A is true and that it is possible that not-A is true is in no way a contradiction.

The only contradictions similar to this statement are "It is possible that A and not-A is true" and "Both A and not-A are true".

Quote

For the right way to come up with a hypothesis: you need to look at the issue from all sorts of angles and form concepts. Then by the time you make a hypothesis, you're almost certain that it's true. Psychologically, the hypothesis should feel like an epiphany, uniting all the sundry reasons and logic you used previously. Most people are as clueless about the hypothesis they make as the person who has just heard about their hypothesis 5 minutes ago.  They develop a belief that they can discover facts of reality without a process of integration. Then they cling onto this A is non-A assertion (that all of the alternatives are possible), once their inability to discover facts of reality become more and more obvious.

You are confusing integration and justification. How you come up with a claim is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.

Furthermore, from your previous posts it seems that you reject deductive logic as a valid form of philosophical investigation. The "If's" you speak of (called premises) are not plucked out of the air. They are usually things somebody already believes. Arguments in philosophy are made so that either new conclusions (and hence knowledge) can be derived from already existing knowledge, but also to examine the consistency of the beliefs we already hold. For example, if you agree with the premises but reject the conclusion, then, assuming that the argument is valid, you must reject at least one premise or else you have to come up with a completely new framework for understanding the subject at hand (this is the part where concept formation comes in). But after you have formed those concepts, the process of integration is still not a justification for your new conclusions. You have to come up with new premises (based on your new concepts) and arguments. In philosophy, arguments are everything.

Edited by SpookyKitty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

To say that it is possible that A is true and that it is possible that not-A is true is in no way a contradiction.

The only contradictions similar to this statement are "It is possible that A and not-A is true" and "Both A and not-A are true".

The way A and non-A are used as human_murda did here is perfectly fine. X cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The way A and non-A are used as human_murda did here is perfectly fine. X cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

You are right that x cannot both exist and not exist. But what human_murda is saying is that the statement "it is possible that x exists and it is possible that x does not exist" is a contradiction, which is simply false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

You are right that x cannot both exist and not exist. But what human_murda is saying is that the statement "it is possible that x exists and it is possible that x does not exist" is a contradiction, which is simply false.

Barring any evidence that x exists, then it would not meet the minimum evidence requirement for being possible.

Barring any evidence that x does not exist, violates the onus of proof principle.

Given a situation where there is no evidence for either, the minimum threshold for possible is not met.

A dog barks. A cat meows. If "A dog barks" is A, and "A cat meows" is non-A, then you you could make a convoluted case that A is true and that non-A is true, but not without indulging in circumlocution of how the general usage of the law of contradiction is applied.

Perhaps I was being too charitable with original framing of interlocutor's statements. After all, it's not precisely a contradiction, it would be, more accurately, an assertion of the arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Barring any evidence that x exists, then it would not meet the minimum evidence requirement for being possible.

There is no "minium threshold for being possible." Any statement which is not a contradiction is possibly true.

Quote

Barring any evidence that x does not exist, violates the onus of proof principle.

To say that "x is possible" in no way bars evidence that x does not exist.

Quote

Given a situation where there is no evidence for either, the minimum threshold for possible is not met.

The only point at which a statement becomes impossible is when its negation is proven to be true.

Quote

A dog barks. A cat meows. If "A dog barks" is A, and "A cat meows" is non-A, then you you could make a convoluted case that A is true and that non-A is true, but not without indulging in circumlocution of how the general usage of the law of contradiction is applied.

Perhaps I was being too charitable with original framing of interlocutor's statements. After all, it's not precisely a contradiction, it would be, more accurately, an assertion of the arbitrary.

If "A dog barks" is A, then not-A is "A dog doesn't bark", not "A cat meows". If "A cat meows" is not-A, then A is "A cat does not meow" not "A dog barks".

"A dog barks" and "A cat meows" are not logical negations. There is no reason why it cannot be that both are true.

Edited by SpookyKitty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

There is no "minium threshold for being possible." Any statement which is not a contradiction is possibly true.

You identified, on your profile page, under the section "Experience with Objectivism" Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I presumed this to meant that you might be familiar with the section "The Arbitrary As Neither True Nor False" starting on pg. 193, or more broadly the role of evidence in acquiring the final mental status, known as certainty, along the identified continuum: going from possible, to probable, to certain (basically the thrust of chapter 5).

So the refuted notion of "Any statement which is not a contradiction is possibly true." is out. Only statements which have some evidence which support it and no evidence which contradict it, are worthy of entering the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration.

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

You identified, on your profile page, under the section "Experience with Objectivism" Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I presumed this to meant that you might be familiar with the section "The Arbitrary As Neither True Nor False" starting on pg. 193, or more broadly the role of evidence in acquiring the final mental status, known as certainty, along the identified continuum: going from possible, to probable, to certain (basically the thrust of chapter 5).

So the refuted notion of "Any statement which is not a contradiction is possibly true." is out. Only statements which have some evidence which support it and no evidence which contradict it, are worthy of entering the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration.

 

A statement which cannot possibly be true can never have any evidence that supports it, by definition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dream_weaver said:

Actually, the "Onus of Proof" principle is broader. The onus of proof lies on he who asserts the positive, because: there can be no proof (evidence) for that which, in fact, does not exist. 

I still don't see what that has to do with a statements possibility of being true,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for X to possibly be true, there has to be some evidence to substantiate it, with absolutely no evidence contradicting it.

To move from possibly true to probably true, (as OPAR outlines it), the evidence for a proposition continues to build, while no evidence against said proposition is discovered.

When the evidence for proposition X to be true is overwhelming—and furthermore, absolutely no evidence against proposition X is forthcoming—its "truth status" grants it permanent residency status in the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration, until, and at such time, as evidence that undermines its legitimate residency standing is admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence as outlined by the rules of evidence and adopted by rules of evidence adhered to by the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration. 

Laws, such as The Law of Identity, The Law of Causality, are epistemological keystones in the two corollary bridges of Existence is Identity, and Consciousness is Identification, which span the ravine of the Arbitrary Assertions.

 

Edited by dream_weaver
addied italics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

In order for X to possibly be true, there has to be some evidence to substantiate it, with absolutely no evidence contradicting it.

To move from possibly true to probably true, (as OPAR outlines it), the evidence for a proposition continues to build, while no evidence against said proposition is discovered.

When the evidence for proposition X to be true is overwhelming—and furthermore, absolutely no evidence against proposition X is forthcoming—its "truth status" grants it permanent residency status in the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration, until, and at such time, as evidence that undermines its legitimate residency standing is admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence as outlined by the rules of evidence and adopted by rules of evidence adhered to by the Sacred Temple of Further Consideration. 

Laws, such as The Law of Identity, The Law of Causality, are epistemological keystones in the two corollary bridges of Existence is Identity, and Consciousness is Identification, which span the ravine of the Arbitrary Assertions.

 

Ohhhh.... now that is much clearer, thank you.

Alright the source of the disagreement is that you are confusing possibility with plausibility.

Any statement which is not a contradiction is possibly true. For example, it is possible that "Zeus exists", however it is not plausible that "Zeus exists".

If "Zeus exists" is impossible, then any evidence which supports "Zeus exists" would itself have to be false. But then it would not be evidence, and we would be in contradiction.

If, however "Zeus exists" is merely implausible, then any evidence which supports "Zeus exists" would simply make the statement more plausible, and there would be no contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibility vs. Plausibility is playing on the nuance of the Latin terms of posse vs plause. Posse having the root of being able to be true (having some, but not much evidence for) vs. plaus- or having the appearance of being true (the status of evidence being merely appearing to be so, but not necessarily able to be so.)

Until shown otherwise, I would have to defer to the possible as having a higher status of evidence than plausible at this stage in my investigation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to put it in slightly different terms, if Peikoff need to distinguish between  possible and plausible, the continuum, as I grasp it here would be:

The arbitrary, followed by plausible, followed by possible, followed by probable, followed by certain.

In the words of Bill Clinton, evading the distinction of what took place between himself and his cigar antics with Monica Lewinski: that depends on what he tries to make is, be.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Perhaps I was being too charitable with original framing of interlocutor's statements. After all, it's not precisely a contradiction, it would be, more accurately, an assertion of the arbitrary.

Actually they are contradictions. Rejecting things based on the arbitrary is merely the method used to resolve the contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

But after you have formed those concepts, the process of integration is still not a justification for your new conclusions. You have to come up with new premises (based on your new concepts) and arguments. In philosophy, arguments are everything.

You shouldn't pit arguments against concepts: they're too closely tied. However, barring evidence for your conclusions, concepts are your ties to reality, not arguments..

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

...For example, it is possible that "Zeus exists", however....

Consider a statement: "With every right step of the foot you take, you have a .00001 chance of exploding". Based on the the lack of evidence, are you going to say that with every right step of your foot, it is possible that you may explode? Are you honestly going to live the rest of your life believing in the possibility that you might explode while walking? What's going to happen is, you're going to forget this assertion after 5 minutes because you don't actually believe it's possible.

You have to have a reason before saying something is possible. So it is not possible that Zeus exists just as it is not possible that you might explode because of the right step of your foot.

The same reasoning applies to reject Pascal's wager (are you going to say you believe in that too?)

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

If "Zeus exists" is impossible, then any evidence which supports "Zeus exists" would itself have to be false. But then it would not be evidence, and we would be in contradiction.

Impossibility requires omnipotence. It's not something you should care about..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are statements which are different in kind from other statements, and these differences cannot be boiled down to mere degrees of support.

The only statements which are neither true nor false, are statements which are completely meaningless or else paradoxical such as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (meaningless) and "This statement is false" (paradoxical). We may call these kinds of statements arbitrary.

Then there are statements which are neither meaningless nor paradoxical, but which are completely implausible and totally improbable. That is, contradictions "A and not-A", 'If A, then not-A", "Neither A nor not-A", etc. Contradictions are always false, so they cannot be neither true nor false, and so they cannot be arbitrary.

There are statements which are possible, probable, but implausible. For example, "There is alien life in the universe." Highly probable given what we know of chemistry and biology and the sheer scale of the universe, but completely implausible as there is no evidence which directly supports the statement.

And so on.

Edited by SpookyKitty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

There are statements which are different in kind from other statements, and these difference cannot be boiled down to mere degrees of support.

The only statements which are neither true nor false, are statements which are completely meaningless or else paradoxical such as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (meaningless) and "This statement is false" (paradoxical). We may call these kinds of statements arbitrary.

Then there are statements which are neither meaningless nor paradoxical, but which are completely implausible and totally improbable. That is, contradictions "A and not-A", 'If A, then not-A", "Neither A nor not-A", etc. Contradictions are always false, so they cannot be neither true nor false, and so they cannot be arbitrary.

There are statements which are possible, probable, but implausible. For example, "There is alien life in the universe." Highly probable given what we know of chemistry and biology and the sheer scale of the universe, but completely implausible as there is no evidence which directly supports the statement.

And so on.

So its possible you might explode then?

NVM: I thought that was a reply to me

Edited by human_murda
I incorrectly inferred that she replied to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@human_murda

Quote

You shouldn't pit arguments against concepts: they're too closely tied. However, barring evidence for your conclusions, concepts are your ties to reality, not arguments

I am not "pitting arguments against concepts", I am recognizing that they are different things.

Quote

So its possible you might explode then?

There is a whole world of a difference between "it is possible" as in "it could happen" and "it is possible" as in "it could be true."

The first sense refers to events, while the second refers to statements. Events are not statements and statemets are not events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Pascal's wager is a very good example of the use of A is non-A... So A is non-A has something to do with real world chit chat after all.. The contradiction is that it makes an argument, assuming that both existence and non-existence of God are possible..

Edited by human_murda
Some elaboration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, human_murda said:

By the way, Pascal's wager is a very good example of the use of A is non-A... So A is non-A has something to do with real world chit chat after all.. The contradiction is that it makes an argument, assuming that both existence and non-existence of God are possible..

Pascal's wager is not a contradiction, it is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

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...