Question Regarding "For the New Intellectual"

[tobyk100]

The following quote is found on page 35 of For the New Intellectual Centennial Edition.

I am not new to objectivism, but I am new to the more technical questions regarding epistomology, so please forgive my ignorance.

[T]his omnipotent power ... was granted to the scientist by philosophical Attila-ism on two conditions: a. that he never claim certainty for his knowledge, since certainty is unknowable to man, and that he claim instead, "precentages of probability,"

Is Ayn Rand attacking "Quantum Physics"? If so, what is "Quantum Physics" and why is it so widely accepted if it is wrong?

Edited August 24, 2006 by tobyk100

[Bold Standard]

The following quote is found on page 35 of For the New Intellectual Centennial Edition.

I am not new to objectivism, but I am new to the more technical questions regarding epistomology, so please forgive my ignorance.

Is Ayn Rand attacking "Quantum Physics"? If so, what is "Quantum Physics" and why is it so widely accepted if it is wrong?

No, I think she's attacking "Logical Positivism," which was/is a popular misinterpretation of Hume that averts complete skepticism by adding the footnote, even though you can't know that any proposition is true for sure, you can know that it's less likely to be impossible or false than other things. For example, you can never know for sure that you exist (that's a common claim from the Logical Positivists), but since it's the simplest non-contradictory explanation for the phenomena you're experiencing at the time, it has a higher probability of being true (in your context of knowledge) than any other alternative (such as, that you don't exist, or that existence isn't really a valid concept, etc).

Some quantum physicists subscribe to this point of view, but not all of them. I'm not a physicist, so I might be a little off, but from what I understand, quantum physics is simply the branch of physics that deals with really small stuff (light photons, gravity, electromagnetic particles, etc) as opposed to relatively big stuff (orbits of planets, or velocity of bullets or airplanes or whatever). There's nothing inherently corrupt about the field of study, but many specialists within the field are (evidently) mistaken (someone must be mistaken, since they all disagree, for one thing), just as there is nothing inherently corrupt about medicine, but many specialists in the field were mistaken when they thought draining a person of blood could cure all sorts of ailments-- it's because they've accepted some false premises (borrowed from bad philosophy).

But I'll read that particular section again to be sure that's what she's talking about-- is it from the title essay, "For the New Intellectual"?

[intellectualammo]

But I'll read that particular section again to be sure that's what she's talking about-- is it from the title essay, "For the New Intellectual"?

Yes, it is.

And David, you are correct. She was referring to Logical Positivists. That reference can be found a few sentences before tobyk100's quote in the essay.

Edited August 24, 2006 by intellectualammo

[tobyk100]

I am sorry, I though Quantum Physics was the whole deal with the Quantum foam, and that you cannot be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happenned 100 out of 100 times in the past.

Now I have a question regarding Logical Positivists. For all practical purposes, doesn't have the same results as an Objectivist approach to science? Because in the end you are accepting the truth, and working with that, even if you don't call it the truth, but you call it "the most probable."

[JMeganSnow]

Logical Positivism and Objectivism are fundamentally different and thus have fundamentally different consequences: L.P. seeks to dispense with a need for Metaphysics in philosophy. The long and the short of it is: how can you know what is "most likely" if you can never know that something is? Projections of probability are based on current certitude.

[KendallJ]

Logical Positivism and Objectivism are fundamentally different and thus have fundamentally different consequences: L.P. seeks to dispense with a need for Metaphysics in philosophy. The long and the short of it is: how can you know what is "most likely" if you can never know that something is? Projections of probability are based on current certitude.

Tieing back to the original posters question, I wonder if there isn't some significant influences of something like Logical positivism on Quantum Mechanics. Specifically stemming from the articulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and from subsequent description of particle characteristics as probability distributions. If you take the particle distribution as an actual metaphysical reality. The Schroedinger's cat argument comes to mind.

[Bold Standard]

And David, you are correct. She was referring to Logical Positivists. That reference can be found a few sentences before tobyk100's quote in the essay.

YESSS, two points! lol.

Tieing back to the original posters question, I wonder if there isn't some significant influences of something like Logical positivism on Quantum Mechanics. Specifically stemming from the articulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and from subsequent description of particle characteristics as probability distributions. If you take the particle distribution as an actual metaphysical reality. The Schroedinger's cat argument comes to mind.

I think that it certainly has had an influence on QM and many other sciences. Mr. Speicher at 4aynrandfans would probably be able to articulate specific influence of logical positivism on Heisenberg and Schroedinger specifically, with references to their works, and maybe someone on this forum (not me!) could do so as well.. But I share your suspicion of a connection being there.

I just want to emphasize that there's nothing inherent in quantum physics or any other legitimate science (and I do consider it to be legitimate, based on the evidence I've seen), which makes it dependent on logical positivism, skepticism, Kantianism, or any of the other corrupt ideas it's modern proponents might have employed/still employ-- and these usually surface mainly in the interpretations given to certain phenomena.. On the experimentation side, from what I understand, QM has a good reputation.

[Bold Standard]

I am sorry, I though Quantum Physics was the whole deal with the Quantum foam, and that you cannot be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happenned 100 out of 100 times in the past.

I'm not sure what Quantum foam is (I'm not denying that it is something, I'm just not familiar with it, probably because I don't know a lot about quantum physics, besides just some introductory texts on the subject that I've read). But the idea that you can't be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happened 100 out of 100 times in the past, is a denial of "induction". Specifically, a denial of "induction by enumeration." Induction is the formation of a general principle drawn from observations of particular concretes.

Induction by simple enumeration was one of the earliest theories of induction, which claims that you can form a general principle after you see something happen a certain amount of times-- for example, you see one person die, then another, and another, and eventually you can form the principle, "all men are mortal."

But this version of induction does have limitations, because-- how do you know you're not simply observing a coincidence, or that you're not interpreting the data incorrectly? Aristotle (who is credited with first outlining the theory of induction) wasn't sure how to answer this, but suggested that induction must be tempered with deductive reasoning in order to validate a principle. Francis Bacon later helped to establish the scientific method as a means of better validating induction.

David Hume is known for a famous "refutation" of induction, on skeptical grounds. Hence, the rejection of induction by the logical positivists, who were influenced by Hume (though they were less consistent). Hence, the probable surfacing of the idea that induction is impossible by modern spokesmen of quantum physics, who are possibly influenced by logical positivism.

Of course, Objectivists do not reject induction, but consider it an indispensable tool for gaining knowledge of reality. Ayn Rand wrote only tentatively on the subject, but many Objectivists now are attempting to elaborate on it, as well as better define and validate it and the proper principles for obtaining it (Leonard Peikoff has been working on a book on induction with physicist David Harriman, but it's not finished yet).

Now I have a question regarding Logical Positivists. For all practical purposes, doesn't have the same results as an Objectivist approach to science? Because in the end you are accepting the truth, and working with that, even if you don't call it the truth, but you call it "the most probable."

If you want to understand some critical differences between the conclusions drawn by logical positivists, and those drawn by Objectivists, study the works of an influential group of logical positivists called "The Vienna Circle." This group published lots of wacky stuff, including an "index of forbidden words," such as "mind", "entity", "essence", "matter", "reality", and "thing" (that index was specifically the work of a member of the Vienna Circle named Otto Neurath, I believe).

Here's another statement from Ayn Rand, regarding the logical positivists, from a letter to philosopher John Hospers in 1961:

It is in their concept of what constitutes "verifiability," in their basic premise and approach (which is implicit in their specific, individual theories) that logical positivists become most mystical. You say: "One must be careful not to condemn it (the Verifiability Principle), en masse in all its forms'—because there have been many different formulations of it. Your statement implies that the Verifiability Principle is sound in essence, qua principle, and that it is only with its various formulations that one can legitimately quarrel. But what I challenge, oppose and condemn is the essence of that principle and of the method it proposes, in all and any of its variations. (I do not believe that "propositions" have to be "verified"; I believe that they have to be "validated"—it is a night-and-day difference.)

If you keep that in mind when researching logical positivism (assuming you're still interested and plan on looking into it further), I think it will help you to understand (it's helped clarify things for me-- but not so much that I can clearly elaborate on it here without looking over some old notes I've taken and articles I've read on logical positivism and the tortuous, chimeric development of the verifiability principle).

Edited August 25, 2006 by Bold Standard