Borderlines
by Joseph Rowlands
One of the topics in Objectivist epistemology is the method of concept-formation. It discusses how it is we can take different entities in reality, and create a useful mental abstraction. How do we go from individual trees to the concept 'tree'? How do we go from instances of the color blue, to the concept 'blue'?
There's a bit to it, but this article will only discuss one key element. The process of differentiation. The concept is a kind of categorization of instances. A concept is always the combining of similar particulars into a group, and differentiating them from everything else. In every concept, you have a way in which instances are similar to each other, and a way in which they're different from everything else.
In fact, similar is a relative term. It's not just that two similar things have something in common, but that they have something in common with respect to other things. Similar things are really less different from each other than they are from everything else. If you look similar to someone else, that means you look less different from the other than you do from everyone else.
So concept formation always requires multiple instances. Those included in the concept, and those excluded. The ones included are less different from each other than they are from the excluded. Concept-formation always involves comparisons and relative differences.
And that leads to the so-called 'problem' of borderline cases. A borderline case arises when you have an instance that is very similar to those in a concept, but doesn't seem to be quite right. The borderline case is less similar to the other instances in a conceptual category as they are from one another, so it kind of sticks out. But it is different from everything else in the same way as the instances in the concept. It sits on the border.
A common fallacy is made in trying to get around the borderline cases. The idea is, if you can just construct a definition in the right way, you won't have borderline cases. You'd do that by making your definition extremely specific and rigid. For instance, you could define the color blue as a range of wavelengths.
The first problem is that you lose the notion of the relative nature of concepts. Take the case of the strict definition of 'blue'. Now if you are in a parking lot full of green cars, and a bluish-green car stands out as very 'blue' relative to the others, it might be called blue in that context. If someone handed you the keys to the car, and said "It's the blue one", you have to think outside of your petty definition. To stubbornly insist there is no blue car is to drop the context the statement is in. Similarly, if the car was surrounded by very blue cars, it would look an awful lot like green.
Another problem with this is that it goes against the method that you used to formulate the concept in the first place. Even when it's possible to set such an exact standard, you lose the notion of degrees. The concept formation was based on the degree of similarity between the instances compared to everything else. Borderline cases still share that similarity, but not to the same extent. But by trying to classify it as either-or, and having rigid definition, you lose track of the similarity that does exist.
For instance, you can define 'scalding hot' to be specific temperature range, say that which is necessary to boil water. If something is just under that particular temperature range, it still shares a lot of attributes with the scalding hot temperature. It'll still burn you, for instance. If someone says "watch yourself, that water is scalding hot", you don't smile smugly and say "no it's not", dipping your hand in.
Objectivism doesn't try to avoid the borderline case. It's a natural byproduct of how we do our thinking. Instead of fearing the borderline case, we recognize it for what it is. It's similar to the other cases, but it has some big difference(s). Recognizing this fact allows us to see the similarities and the differences better, and make a more accurate judgment based on that knowledge.
So next time you feel tempted to make a borderline-proof definition, keep in mind that you won't really benefit from it. By recognizing our method of formulating and retaining concepts, you can better understand ideas.
Discuss this Article (7 messages)
|
