Why cannot the future be random? (or: invalidating axioms?)

Metaphysics and Epistemology
41

Again, what is confusing about my posts

I didn’t say confusing, I said confused. I think you’re confused about the subject you’re discussing, and don’t have a well thought out position.

I’ll pick one blatant example out of many:

Philosophically, empirical evidence is valid because there is no other kind of evidence with regards to reality.

You make no further attempts to clarify. From where I’m standing, that’s much too obviously an invalid inference for me to expect that you’ll ever get around to making a coherent, well thought out argument.

42

Louie said:

hink you are very wrong here. Consider sNerd’s post about philosophy being a lot of generalizations helped along by science.

I obviously disagree that is the case. You will not find support for this in any Oist literature… Bacon himself would not agree with his formulation as the two were not considered separate things…

Louie said:

lud already explained he agrees that science depends on some good philosophy, although there is disagreement over what is the exact nature of axioms.

And I’ve already explained that he contradicted this in other statement he made.

Louie said:

Philosophy doesn’t veto science, nor does science veto philosophy. They are symbiotic in the sense that science is observation of reality. Good philosophy is the same. If at some point science shows contradictions, either your philosophy must be updated, or you’re interpreting it wrong.

I’m not surprised you think this given other things you said that contradict Oism directly. Both Ms. Rand and Dr. Peikoff have published differently… Philosophy is a science for Oism. And now you’ve contradicted yourself too. Science cant “veto” philosophy but somehow it can make you “update” your philosophy…

As I said, the charge of physics being infested with bad philosophy is about saying that it undermines itself. Why physics in particular? Because it is closely related to basic questions of existence. Don’t get ahead of yourself, the topic is about a philosophy question that looks to be based on bad science.

What you said doesn’t make any sense. The topic is about asking a question that presupposes that physics can answer philosophical questions all the while calling them “science”. And when others pointed out that it is “bad philosophy” snark and condescension ensued.

43

Your correct that Im correct… :wink:

I don’t doubt it.

 

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

Hmm…

I consider the case I’m making to be somewhat subtle. Or maybe I’m just flat-out wrong to try to draw a distinction here, between an axiom (which may never be mistaken) and one’s understanding or identification of an axiom (which might)? But let me attempt to make the case anyways, and maybe we can figure it out. Maybe this is simply some remnant of skepticism infecting my ideas.

I’m quite on board with the idea that one cannot “disprove” those ideas which themselves make proof possible. Yet a person could be mistaken in his identification of which ideas those are. Couldn’t he?

To try to approach this a different way…

I believe in free will. I do not believe that there can exist anything which would demonstrate free will to be false, primarily based on my experience of my own will, but also in recognition of the fact that to “demonstrate” in this sense is itself an appeal to my volition. To “demonstrate” presumes free will.

Yet imagine if I were discussing matters with someone else who made the claim that – oh, I don’t know – “free will” means that drug addicts shouldn’t ever require any sort of rehabilitation, because they could simply “will” themselves to stop. Or that there’s no reason why Charlie Manson (if he were ever paroled) couldn’t make for a perfectly fine babysitter – because “free will” means that he could simply opt to be a different man from one second to the next, and as good as Galt.

Suppose that I attempted to argue with him on these points, and in reply he said something like: “I don’t even have to consider your ‘arguments’ or your ‘evidence.’ You’re arguing against free will and you depend upon free will to do so, therefore your position is necessarily self-contradictory.”

Well that wouldn’t be very helpful, I don’t think, for either of us. I would want him to understand, at the least, that he might be mistaken in his interpretation or application of “free will,” and to give my argument a fair hearing and assessment before dismissal. For his own sake, I believe that he should want the same thing.

Thus, if someone were to approach me with an argument that holds that I’ve made some mistake in either the choice, formulation or application of that which I hold to be “axiomatic,” oughtn’t I at least give the claim a hearing? If it turns out that their argument presupposes or relies upon the very thing that they seek to reject (as for instance, free will), then I can identify that fact and subsequently dismiss their claim (and maybe/hopefully even help them to do the same). Yet my rejection would depend on my identification (that is, in conclusion, following my having assessed it), and not on rejecting it before such an identification, on the basis of it being judged to be an attack on some axiomatic position or belief, as such.

Is this sensible? Or have I got it all wrong?

44

ITOE said:

If it should be asked, at this point: Who,

then, is to keep order in the organization of

man’s conceptual vocabulary, suggest the

changes or expansions of definitions,

formulate the principles of cognition and the

criteria of science, protect the objectivity of

methods and of communications within and

among the special sciences, and provide the

guidelines for the integration of mankind’s

knowledge?—the answer is: philosophy.

These, precisely, are the tasks of

epistemology. The highest responsibility of

philosophers is to serve as the guardians and

integrators of human knowledge.

This is the responsibility on which modern

philosophy has not merely defaulted, but

worse: which it has reversed. It has taken the

lead in the disintegration and destruction of

knowledge—and has all but committed

suicide in the process.

Philosophy is the foundation of science;

epistemology is the foundation of

philosophy. It is with a new approach to

epistemology that the rebirth of philosophy

has to begin.

More later Don.

45

Philosophy is a science for Oism.

 

That’s the point. Special science is critical to the development of philosophy, and philosophy is critical to the development of special science. If it’s not the Oist view, I don’t care. I actually would say it is an implied view, but not part of Oism. Rand did write that the industrial revolution was necessary to develop her philosophy, or at least to conclude capitalism is indeed the best political system.

 

And by update, I only mean that good philosophy *must* take into account any and all observations of reality. I think that’s what matters here. Do you agree? If I observe that planets orbit the sun in an ellipse, that right away nullifies any philosophy that declares the universe operates in perfect, symmetrical  harmony. Kepler worked for a long time to fruitlessly to show alleged perfect harmony. Nothing worked. As a result he had to update his philosophy to even see that his interpretation of data was right, his philosophy wrong. If Kepler insisted on his philosophy, we’d call that “bad philosophy” tainting physics.

46

DonAthos said:

 

 

between an axiom (which may never be mistaken) and one’s understanding or identification of an axiom (which might)?.. I’m quite on board with the idea that one cannot “disprove” those ideas which themselves make proof possible. Yet a person could be mistaken in his identification of which ideas those are. Couldn’t he?

 

This. This is what I’ve been trying to get at, apparently less successfully. Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one’s identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That’s three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.

 

I did qualify that if evidence existed to contradict an axiom, the axiom would not be the first place I’d look for a failure. I’d re-examine the evidence and the conclusion endlessly, because presumably if I hold an axiom to be true, I’ve repeatedly re-affirmed that the axiom is necessary for all other things I encounter.

 

Plasmatic said:

 

 

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

 

It seems to me that I’ve either mis-stated my case or you’ve misunderstood what I’ve stated.

 

I agree that any kind of proof presupposses the axioms that I hold to be true. My issue is that the axioms were not handed down to me by divine will - I identified them myself, and I am fallible. If evidence contradicted my identification of the axioms, I’d be very hard pressed to accept the evidence or the conclusion drawn from it… but if the evidence and conclusion proved incontrovertible, I would have to re-examine my identification of the axioms, because I am fallible and I may have mis-identified or misinterpreted the axioms.

 

 

Specifically that you think the axioms “could be wrong”, which contradicts the statement that you “understand that axioms aren’t provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them”

 

Your disagreement here seems to lie in me misusing terms, I suppose. No, if an axiom is truly an axiom, it cannot be disproved. Axioms are not subject to truth values.

 

I, however, am. I’m entirely capable of mis-identifying an axiom. I’m entirely capable of misinterpreting an axiom. I can make mistakes. So if the evidence of reality truly, incontrovertibly, contradicted something that I believed to be an axiom - well, I’d be forced to consider the possibility that I mis-identified it as an axiom, or I misinterpreted the consequences of that axiom. If such a thing ever happened, it would imply that the axiom is, perhaps, not an axiom at all.

 

However, as I have said previously, it would take a whole hell of a lot of examination, re-examination, and re-re-examination of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it before I would even entertain that possibility. An axiom is considered so because it is necessary for me to believe anything that I have seen up to that point. Something that tells me my belief in an axiom is wrong would have to be convincing enough to also make me think that everything else that I’ve seen and believed in my life to that point is also wrong - and proving that to me would be one hell of a feat.

 

 

 

My issue was originally with someone criticizing a scientific idea on account of it being “bad philosophy.” My contention is simply that that’s not an appropriate response to scientific evidence and a scientific conclusion. If there is an absolutely miniscule chance that I mis-identified an axiom, there’s still a chance. I’m not saying that I would immediately assume my philosophy to be wrong if science contradicted it - but I would also not use my philosophy as a basis for criticizing the scientific idea. I’d examine the idea, the evidence and the conclusion drawn from the evidence on a scientific basis until I found where the fault is in its conclusion.

1 Like
47

Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one’s identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That’s three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.

But they aren’t “equally valid”, at least not under a completely rational, reality based, fully integrated philosophy. Part of the problem here is talking in generalities. Talking about all “philosophies” and all “axioms” in general, as if they all describe reality correctly and are all equally valid is absurd and obviously untrue. Since we are on an Objectivist forum, why don’t we talk about Objectivism.

Do you think Ayn Rand’s identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are axioms and what the characteristics and identifying features of an axiom are? If so, have you validated this knowledge for yourself?

In other words, do you agree and accept that these three are actually axioms and that they truly describe reality? Meaning: there would be no science if existence didn’t exist, there would be no science without conscious beings examining what exists, there would be no science if the thing you were examining could be itself and something else at the same time?

If so, if you agree with all this, then I don’t see how you could accept any evidence that would invalidate that very same evidence. If some “scientist” came up to me claiming to have evidence that I didn’t exist, I was not conscious, or that the coffee I was drinking could be a pile of shit, I’m not sure what I would do first, there are too many logical options. I suppose a slap in the face could defeat his entire line of argument quite eloquently. When he protested I would say, protests, slaps, my hand and the two of us don’t exist, certainly, neither of us is conscious so we must be dreaming, and anyway, it wasn’t actually a slap, it was a kiss.

48

Do you think Ayn Rand’s identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are axioms and what the characteristics and identifying features of an axiom are? If so, have you validated this knowledge for yourself?

He was very clear in explaining in his post that since people are infallible, our understanding of the axioms is fallible too, as in it is possible to discover that something you think is an axiom never was an axiom to begin with. That isn’t even saying “existence exists” isn’t valid, it just means that along with all knowledge, we must observe the world as it is.

 

To be blunt about it, I’m not sure you understood Rand’s argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

 

Yes, I said “probably”. But possibility of being wrong doesn’t erase certainty.

49

He was very clear in explaining in his post that since people are infallible, our understanding of the axioms is fallible too, as in it is possible to discover that something you think is an axiom never was an axiom to begin with. That isn’t even saying “existence exists” isn’t valid, it just means that along with all knowledge, we must observe the world as it is.

 

To be blunt about it, I’m not sure you understood Rand’s argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

 

Yes, I said “probably”. But possibility of being wrong doesn’t erase certainty.

 

And yet again Eiuol says what I’m thinking more eloquently and concisely than I ever could.  :thumbsup:

50

To be blunt about it, I’m not sure you understood Rand’s argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone. The fact is to grasp an axiom requires observations of the world, so by the same reasoning, our understanding of axioms can change with new observations. Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.

You’ve got to be kidding me… Quote anything in Oist literature you think supports this nonsense of “axioms can change with new observations”… This is so anti Oist that I cant believe a moderator in this forum is saying it. You have no understanding of the basis of certainty at all if you believe this.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you louie?

51

You’ve got to be kidding me… Quote anything in Oist literature you think supports this nonsense of “axioms can change with new observations”…

Axiomatic concepts are knowledge. Knowledge is derived from reality. Axioms are, metaphysically speaking, the basis to knowledge, but our recognition of axioms must be discovered. Thus, our knowledge of axioms can change. I don’t mean the facts of reality change, I mean our understanding of reality changes. It seems as though the problem you have with what I said is that axioms are discovered.

52

Axiomatic concepts are knowledge. Knowledge is derived from reality. Axioms are, metaphysically speaking, the basis to knowledge, but our recognition of axioms must be discovered. Thus, our knowledge of axioms can change. I don’t mean the facts of reality change, I mean our understanding of reality changes. It seems as though the problem you have with what I said is that axioms are discovered.

 

 

You and ludicious keep doing this. You make a ridiculous comment and then when your pressed you try to say something other than what you said before. But what you said before that was wrong is still present in what your saying now.(I’ll address this in detail in a bit)

 

If my problem was with the fact made clear by Ms Rand that we discover the implicit fact of axioms from all facts, I would have asked you to quote her saying that. I asked you to defend the claim that anything in Oism supports the idea that axioms are to viewed as a type of conditional truth that by your account could have been otherwise_-“just happen to be true_”. The very statement, "Insofar as the axioms are consistent with what we observe, nothing will change. It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change." is a description of an observer identifying conditional evidence in order to _ prove _ something. You are claiming that one proves via evidence that the axioms are the basis of proof and therefore they are contextual truths that might be found, with more evidence, to not be the basis for proof!

 

Axioms are the precondition of context, they cannot change with more.

 

edit:

53

You and ludicious keep doing this. You make a ridiculous comment and then when your pressed you try to say something other than what you said before. But what you said before that was wrong is still present in what your saying now.(I’ll address this in detail in a bit)

You are confusing axioms with knowledge of axioms.

 

Conditional truth? Even accusing me of using a “conditional truth” is pretty close to accepting that there is an analytic/synthetic dichotomy as though coming to know an axiom through experience invalidates the axiom or introduces a conditional. If we can’t discover new axioms or declare others as false, you may as well say Ayn Rand is the messiah because she brought us the Axiom Trinity. All I’m saying is axioms are logically foundational to everything, but forming the concept is fallible. I am not saying axioms can be proven.

54

You are confusing axioms with knowledge of axioms.

Lol.

55

Louie said:

 

 

You are confusing axioms with knowledge of axioms.

 

Seriously?

 

No, you are confusing the need to conceptualize axioms with the idea that they are contextually revisable. As Mark mentioned, I am not talking about some unidentified hypothetical axiom but the axioms of Objectivism.  From the beginning of this thread when the _ general _ science of philosophy has been contrasted with the _ specialized _ knowledge of other sciences it has been stressed that Oism is the context for the discussion in this forum. So you can quit hiding behind the idea that the issue of the _ foundation _ of philosophy being contradicted by specialized knowledge addressed in this thread is some unidentified possible axiom not germane to Oism.

 

Louie said:

 

 

Conditional truth? Even accusing me of using a “conditional truth” is pretty close to accepting that there is an analytic/synthetic dichotomy as though coming to know an axiom through experience invalidates the axiom or introduces a conditional. If we can’t discover new axioms or declare others as false, you may as well say Ayn Rand is the messiah because she brought us the Axiom Trinity. All I’m saying is axioms are logically foundational to everything, but forming the concept is fallible.

 

Nowhere did I use “conditional truth”, but even if I had, your strawman is severe context dropping. EDIT: Yes I did, to describe your characterization not mine… Nothing I said implies that axioms are invalidated by being validated. I used conditional as a synonym of contextual. In particular I made it clear that I was NOT debating the need to discover that axioms are implicit in all facts. I used the word conditional to describe your comments treating the axioms as “derived” or “discovered” from a specialized context as though a new context _migh_t invalidate them.

 

louie said:

 

 

 I am not saying axioms can be proven.

 You are claiming that its possible  axioms can be disproven by further evidence! Edit: and therefore subject to contextual revision,

 

 

louie said:

 

 

 If we can’t discover new axioms or declare others as false, you may as well say Ayn Rand is the messiah because she brought us the Axiom Trinity

Discovering new axioms are implicit has nothing to do with our contention.

 

Ironically that is Dream Weavers tag.( an excellent choice as a moderator…) You are here directly attacking the very root of reason, knowledge and certainty, not to mention doing so in a way that implicitly disrespects Ms. Rand (implying that if she thought this then she is some kind of religious zealot) given that it is her position that the axioms are incontrovertible. You are accepting the very positions she condemned concerning axiomatic truths.

56

You are claiming that its possible axioms can be disproven by further evidence!

“Axioms are, metaphysically speaking, the basis to knowledge, but our recognition of axioms must be discovered.” -me

Discovery =/= Proof. Your awareness of an axiom may be brought on by a specialized science, and if we EVER observe an inconsistency, as with Kepler, our philosophy may be wrong. Kepler probably had his mind totally blown that none of his observations worked with the universe of perfection created by god. From that realization, provided by special science of astronomy, that brought on the EVENTUAL axioms Rand discovered. So, this is what I mean by confusing metaphysical facts, ontology if you will, from our conceptual development. I am only making an epistemological claim that by the very reason we discover axioms, we can be mistaken in what  we identify as an axiom. We could use poor methods.

 

You are here directly attacking the very root of reason, knowledge and certainty

 

 

This is rhetoric absent of facts to support it. It sounds pithy, but explain yourself more. Descartes basically treated “cogito ergo sum” as axiomatic. But it had issues despite how great it sounds. He wasn’t 100% wrong, and it can’t be proven wrong, but further philosophical and scientific developments allowed for the realization that simply thinking isn’t the whole story to consciousness being conscious. It is difficult to phrase it exactly right, so don’t crucify me if I don’t pass the linguistic analysis test. Yeah, axioms are themselves incontrovertible, but that doesn’t mean 5,000 years in the future we won’t find that Rand wasn’t 100% right.

Let’s not go back and forth on interpretation though. Give me a whole argument. I’m trying to use Descartes and Kepler to illustrate my points,  along with Rand’s recognition that even axioms must be observed, and that we are fallible with regarding to recognizing what is valid.

 

57

Lol.

 

I’m glad you worked so hard to come up with an in-depth, meaningful response to an important and complex discussion. 

58

Discovery =/= Proof. Your awareness of an axiom may be brought on by a specialized science, and if we EVER observe an inconsistency, as with Kepler, our philosophy may be wrong

 

Is this not an assertion of the arbitrary? You’ve used the word ‘possible’ several times but according to Objectivism: ““X is possible” means: in the present context of knowledge, there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of X and nothing known that contradicts X.” It would seem that the falsity of the axioms is by this understanding of ‘possibility’ not possible. Also, it seems to me that the axioms of Objectivism are so integrated with every piece of knowledge I hold (I could trace every concept back to them) that discovering some arbitrary new thing that invalidated them would necessarily invalidate every concept I hold.

59

Possible is referring here to fallibility, where an individual could be wrong about what is true. I am not referring to the presence of counter-evidence. That’s why I said “awareness of an axiom” rather than “evidence of an axiom”. You can mistake a rhino for an elephant, even though there is no evidence that the rhino-mistake is an elephant because the trunk couldn’t be seen. Similarly, you can mistake a provable fact for an axiom. This is fallibility.

60

Possible is referring here to fallibility, where an individual could be wrong about what is true. I am not referring to the presence of counter-evidence. That’s why I said “awareness of an axiom” rather than “evidence of an axiom”. You can mistake a rhino for an elephant, even though there is no evidence that the rhino-mistake is an elephant because the trunk couldn’t be seen. Similarly, you can mistake a provable fact for an axiom. This is fallibility.

 

Oh, OK. I don’t think that I really have a complete grasp of the issues at stake in this discussion so please excuse me if I say something silly. Should there be a concept for what people often mean when they speak of ‘possible’ colloquially? Like, ‘I could imagine a scenario in which this fact was otherwise’ kind of possible. Would the falsity of the axioms qualify under either kind of ‘possible’? It doesn’t seem like it.