About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Potential responders,

Let me preemptively address a key error of mine here. One that you might ambiguously refer to as: "astronomical ignorance."

;-)

I tried to get a lot of mileage out of the Morning Star-Evening Star-Venus phenomenon and, as it turns out, I blew out a tire. What I mean is that, in retrospect, I can't be taken literally. Okay, okay, please bear with me and allow me to get to the point without further, humorous self-criticism:

The dynamic that actually affords for the 2 distinct perceptions of the self-same thing (Morning Star at one point in the sky; Evening Star at another point in the sky) is NOT primarily the solar orbit of Venus (or Earth, for that matter), but is primarily due to the Earth's diurnal rotation. In other words, in 12 hours or so, Venus has not moved much along its solar orbit, but the relative position of a perceiver located at some point (latitude/longitude) on planet Earth -- relative to Venus' virtually unchanged position in space -- has changed enough to fool initial perceivers into "seeing stars" (plural).

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe you had a different aim here -- validation of induction and not methods of induction. However, Rand's answer that you quoted and your essay miss a big piece of philosophical history on induction. Ignored are the five methods of induction -- often called Mill's Methods -- described in John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic (1843).
1. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference
2. The Method of Agreement
3. The Method of Difference
4. The Method of Residues
5. The Method of Concomitant Variations

He didn't originate them, however. Indeed, David Hume gave three of them in A Treatise of Human Nature (Bk. I, Part III, Chap. XV). Fred Seddon points this out in Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy (p. 53-55), as did H. W. B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic.

Another point: the subsection of Matson's essay on sulphur you use is titled "essence as an epistemelogical notion." The problem of induction is only mentioned in parentheses at the end.


Post 2

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 12:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin, thanks for that input.

==================
Maybe you had a different aim here -- validation of induction and not methods of induction.
==================

Actually, to be precise here: Discovery and communication of that method of induction (ie. by "mechanistic explanation") which is valid and rationally-justifiable.


==================
However, Rand's answer that you quoted and your essay miss a big piece of philosophical history on induction. Ignored are the five methods of induction -- often called Mill's Methods -- described in John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic (1843).
==================

Yes, there's much history missed here. Incidentally, Mill (like Hume) was stuck on the twin errors of

1) event causation -- rather than agent (entity) causation; and
2) induction by simple enumeration

Mill's .methods required validating any induction with further induction (rather than a conclusively-confirmatory, retroactive deduction -- which is a "historically-novel" dynamic which I've outlined in this essay). Here is an excerpt from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy ("Mill's methods"; p 572) showing just this induction-begets-induction deficiency of Mill's:


==================
The existence claim here is known as a principle of determinism and the delimited range of alternatives is known as a principle of limited variety. Similar principles are needed for the other methods. Such principles are clearly empirical, and must be given prior inductive support ...
==================


Also of note was this (regarding Mill's methods):

==================
He didn't originate them, however. Indeed, David Hume gave three of them in A Treatise of Human Nature
==================

And prior to Hume was Francis Bacon, the very father of eliminative induction. He outlined 4 methods involving "positive instances", "negative instances", "prerogative instances" and what I will here call "lock-step tracking" (e.g. molecular velocity tracks to heat production).


==================
Another point: the subsection of Matson's essay on sulphur you use is titled "essence as an epistemological notion." The problem of induction is only mentioned in parentheses at the end.
==================

Apparently, Matson didn't feel it necessary to make a "big deal" about his philosophic validation of (rationally-justified) induction. I, however, feel otherwise about that (hence the essay).

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, I really wish you would learn the mechanics of clear, simple, unambiguous English sentences before you write posts and articles which require a decoder ring:

> Another Example Analogy

There is no such thing as an "example analogy". The reader has to try to figure out whether you are giving an example, what it is an example of, and what are the two things you are drawing an analogy between.

> I. Logical assumptions ... Perception = direct pickup—by an organism—of the contrasts or variances (and therefore, of the invariances) in that organism’s environment

Do you understand that you are giving a definition here, not a 'logical assumption'? Why didn't you call it what it was instead of whatever you felt like calling it? More important, no one reading this who did not already know what sense perception is would recognize that the senses are involved in your definition. Direct pickup could mean anything - radio waves or garbage collection, perhaps. Just look up the definition of perception in a good dictionary instead of inventing your own bizarre formulations.

After having read five or six of these fuzzy statements, the reader ends up feeling enormous resentment at you and simply resolves not to read what you have to say in the future.

Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

========
I really wish you would learn the mechanics of clear, simple, unambiguous English sentences ... There is no such thing as an "example analogy".
========

And I wish you'd learn some manners, and not be so condescending. Interacting with you can sometimes feel like licking sandpaper does (try that with about 200 grain paper once -- and you'll know what I mean).

1) EXAMPLE
an instance (as a problem to be solved) serving to illustrate a rule or precept or to act as an exercise in the application of a rule
 
2) ANALOGY
correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin
 
3) EXAMPLE ANALOGY
an instance serving to illustrate a rule, say, of a function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin
 
The instance above = The "problem" of valid inference to the universal negation of the product: helium sulfide. Or perhaps the problem of valid inference -- in this case identification -- from 2 distinct perceptions of the same planet, in 2 different places and times
 
The function (between parts of different structure and origin) above = my second (Venus) example, with dynamics analogous to -- but not identical with -- the dynamics required for the valid inference with helium sulfide.
 
 
==============
Perception = direct pickup—by an organism—of the contrasts or variances (and therefore, of the invariances) in that organism’s environment

Do you understand that you are giving a definition here, not a 'logical assumption'?

==============
 
ASSUMPTION
the act of laying claim to (or taking possession of) something <the assumption of a new position>
 
 
==============
More important, no one reading this who did not already know what sense perception is would recognize that the senses are involved in your definition. Direct pickup could mean anything ...
==============
 
Then ask about it then, Phil. Don't always "tell" -- try "asking" in situations like these. It's not hard at all. Before going on a tirade about potential ambiguities or imperfections like this one or that one -- fricken ask about it. Geezus, can you ever be a nag (I think I'd rather go lick sandpaper). The fricken definition is from JJ Gibson's Ecological Theory of Direct Perception. Are you familiar with it? If not ... then fricken ask.
 
 
==============

After having read five or six of these fuzzy statements, the reader ends up feeling enormous resentment at you and simply resolves not to read what you have to say in the future.

==============

 

This is obviously both a personal sentiment of yours -- and a logical presumption of similar sentiments in rational others. I'll try to be more clear in the future. More concise.

 

Anyway, you had already told me about how you do not like reading my work -- so what's the point, Phil? I understood you the first time. What added point have you made here by telling me the same thing you told me before?  

 

Now, apparently, instead of just not liking my unorthodox style, there's a measure of resentment. I don't get you, man. Are you pissed that I didn't whip my writing skills into shape after you complained? Was it a complaint, or an order? In fact, screw-this.

 

Phil, I invite you to consider "not to read what [I] have to say in the future."

 

Ed
 
 



Post 5

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Learn from criticism and be grateful for the ones that help you improve. Unless you are already a good writer who can be easily understood. Are you?


(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/23, 10:34am)


Post 6

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

Do you know that common phrase about being a teacher?

Ethan


Post 7

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes: Those who can't teach criticize those who can.

Post 8

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ha!

If you call that teaching.....enjoy.

Ethan


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

====================
Learn from criticism and be grateful for the ones that help you improve.
====================

???

Tell a guy he's been over-critical -- and he responds with a direct criticism of your response to his initial criticism! That's it, Phil. Our planned Objectivist cable-tv talk show ... is now off the table. I'm pulling the plug on it (and returning the sponsorship monies that I've collected so far). It's schism-ing time, pal.

!!!

====================
Unless you are already a good writer who can be easily understood. Are you?
====================

I'm a good writer who is often hard to understand. And you're -- as can be ascertained from much of your activity here -- likely a lazy, loathing critic (possibly an envious one, at that).

Ed




Post 10

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, your article is impressive. I'll have to read it a second time to clarify my understanding. But I enjoyed your demonstration of how the law of identity ties into induction. I also appreciated your brief discussion of Hume, including his misconceptions about the nature of thinking. (I cringe whenever I hear someone talk about having "an open mind". I sometimes then suggest, "an active mind"? But they look at me blankly...)

I always thought the morning star and evening star were different celestial bodies!


Post 11

Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,

Thanks for the praise. And I agree with you about those oft-dastardly "open mind-ers" -- usually they're "selling" something (spiritual or material).

With regard to the source of things like this, I loved it when Rand (PWNI) traced and showed the source of popularly traded quotes & bromides. While Kant is often considered the root of all philosophical evil, Kant's work -- for the most part, if not entirely -- was a reaction to Hume.

Not affecting his own generation as much as those to follow, Hume set us back at least a century or two, in terms of moral and philosophical progress on Earth.

Ed


Post 12

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 12:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, thanks for the interesting article.  Lots of food for thought there.


Post 13

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 2:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You're welcome, and thanks for sanctioning the publication of this potentially-pivotal essay.

If I had to distill it (because contemporary philosophers were demanding thus) -- I'd say that there is a rationally-justifiable induction via mechanistic explanation, with a delimitation of plausibility via axiomatic concepts. In this sense, it's mostly about noncontradictory integration. And it now affords a mitigated (contextual) certainty which was previously, professionally, unjustifiable.

Ed


Post 14

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I enjoyed your article. It's going to take me awhile to digest it :-)

Ethan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good food is not downed in a mere moment.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

After rereading the first part I realize that you made a number of good points on the connection between identify and causality and induction which my irritation at your writing unclarity had blinded me to. (And perhaps I should make detailed writing criticisms offlist, assuming the writer is open to them and I have time.)

Post 17

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
^
|
|

Wow. Time for me to buy a lottery ticket.


Post 18

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil, thanks for the recognition of value. 

And yes, I would be open to hearing -- and responding to -- further criticisms from yourself (or others) through RoRmail. That sounds so much more professional -- and, incidentally, it would maximize the third-party perceived merit of this very website.

Ed


Post 19

Friday, February 24, 2006 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

     "Whoa-a-h!"

     Akin to Phil, I had a little problem following, but, no two ways about it: Good 'comprehensive' analysis ! I've frequently been on the lookout for new (worthwhile) thoughts on Induction.

     As with a couple others, it will take a bit o' time to digest for me. (I'm already burping.) --- You're criticism of Mill's criteria is...fascinating...even with refs to other critiques.

     It's good you caveated with the 1st post re Venus; you killed my 1st clearly formulated criticism. Darn. Now I have to REALLY think about the rest to catch you in an over-sight.

     I just KNEW you were deeper than Minesweeper!



LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/24, 2:19pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.