Mahroo Mastafavi

In post 33 Nick gives some dictionary definitions of "faith", all of which include phrases such as "no proof", "without logical proof", and "not based on proof or material evidence." He then says:

So, faith is belief, in the conventional parlance.

Simply saying "faith is belief" conveniently ignores the "no proof or evidence" phrases he just cited. This is another of Nick's blatant attempts to obliterate the distinction between faith and belief -- by obliterating any distinction between ZERO evidence and SOME -- though inconclusive -- evidence. Except in religious contexts, "belief" usually means accepting a proposition based on SOME, though inconclusive, evidence. Except in religious contexts, "belief" usually pertains to the logically possible and excludes logically impossible absurdities. I can believe the next roll of a typical die will show a 6 on top; it takes faith to believe the die will land with only one edge touching the table.

Obliterating the distinction between faith -- no evidence and/or logically impossible -- and belief -- some evidence and logically possible -- is evasion.

Post 41

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:44am

You seem to emphasize only one side of the definitions I posted. You ignored the part which said faith is belief. None of the definitions say that faith means no evidence and belief means some evidence. These are your own and Bridget's constructions.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 42

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:05am

Faith is a subset of belief. - a belief of unconditionality....

Post 43

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:00pm

Nick, inductive reasoning is always reasoning from a particular, or set of particulars. It usually ends in a general, but can end in a particular -- as the Venus example shows.

In contrast, deductive reasoning is always reasoning that ends in a particular. But it is the relation to the particular that differentiates induction from deduction. Here is an example of inductive reasoning (reasoning that reasons from particulars) ...

The odd # 1 is a prime number between 0 and 8.
The odd # 3 is a prime number between 0 and 8..
The odd # 5 is a prime number between 0 and 8..
The odd # 7 is a prime number between 0 and 8..
================
Therefore, all odd numbers between 0 and 8 are prime numbers.**

**It is not possible for this inductive generalization to be false (ie. it requires NO faith).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/31, 1:03pm)

Post 44

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:15pm

No, Ed, that is not the normal example of an inductive argument, although some logic books might allow it. It is an example of "perfect induction" where all specifics in a set are checked and then merely put together as a restatement of the premises. It is actually a deductive argument or a tautology. 1+1=2 is another example of the same thing. There is no leap there. It would be a leap to say the next odd number would be prime, but you don't want to go there.

It is true that the example you gave requires no faith, but the example you gave is an exception to the rule for inductive arguments. Most inductive arguments base a general conclusion on a sampling of specific evidence, not all of it.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 45

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:45pm

Nick, stop trying to blend belief with faith, m'kay?

-- Bridget

Post 46

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:34pm

Nick, stop trying to blend belief with faith, m'kay?

Is there something in for me if I do? I don't live my life just to please you. I honestly think faith and belief are blended, and you have not convnced me otherwise.

BTW, stand up for something important. Condemn bigotry and use your communication skills and knowledge to make this a better world, as far as you can from the level of a messageboard poster. Try to expose hypocracy and promote integrety. Don't waste your time on small disagreements about definitions, unless they really matter. Just try to understand what someone is saying and take a position on the larger issues, m'kay?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 47

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:11am

(Nick)Condemn bigotry and use your communication skills and knowledge to make this a better world, as far as you can from the level of a messageboard poster. Try to expose hypocracy and promote integrety. Don't waste your time on small disagreements about definitions, unless they really matter. Just try to understand what someone is saying and take a position on the larger issues, m'kay?

(Me) Nope, because you're implying that I have an obligation to do so. All I care to do in my life is to see as much as I can, be with my family, and probably die at an old age. Beyond that, I don't really give a flying flip about the rest of the world. If that's bad to you, good, because I use to care about other people a long time ago.

Also, wtf does it have to do with the fact that you define terms more liberally than Meno in the platonic dialoges? Nothing. So stop dodging and focus on the issue and admit your error.

-- Bridget

Post 48

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:27am

Nope, I'm making no error. If were, I would admit it and apologize. I've done that before. However, I don't accept unearned guilt, especially just to make someone else happy.

So, get hung up on unimportant things if you want. Don't take a stand on what matters. Don't try to make your life meaningful and do a little good in the world. Just waste it and die. You'll have lots of company.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 49

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:21pm

Nick,

===================
No, Ed, that is not the normal example of an inductive argument
===================

But it IS an example of inductive (from particulars) argumentation. Oh, I see Nick, I see what you "wanted" me to say ...

1) the sun rose yesterday
2) the sun rose today
=================
Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

That is, indeed, what you wanted me to say, isn't it, Nick? Yeah, you who think you are dealing with a sub-excellent mind. You who DARE question whether I am familiar with inductive argumentation (knowing I WROTE A DAMN ESSAY ON IT). Who in the HELL do you think that you are dealing with, Nick-ster?! Nick-ster the trick-ster -- that's my new "nick"-name for you.

What you short-sightedly decry, is induction via simple enumeration, just like your idea-brother Hume did. You and Hume just don't "get it" when it comes to a Law of Identity or a Law of Causality.

You don't acknowledge that things are what they are. You postulate an "ineffable" change in the nature of reality. Of course, you have absolutely no positive evidence that said "change" is even plausible. But that doesn't stop you, no -- you who can "imagine" things behaving differently; even within the same circumstances.

You can imagine things not being what they are. You are able and, have proven, willing, to turn your back on reality -- and float free in some god-forsaken imaginative abstraction.

You and Hume are a couple of idiots (as I've decisively shown in my "Veridicality-" essay).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/01, 8:22pm)

Post 50

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:32pm

Well, Ed, yes, I think Hume has a point. One must assume there is an order in nature which will make inductive arguments true. Sometimes, though, they are false. We are still learning about nature and do not have all the answers already. Some things do appear to have fixed natures, and we formulate laws which explain their behavior. This helps us to predict consequences enough to construct computers, to travel into space, and to save lives. This mechanistic model, run by causality, is useful. It is pragmatic. However, there are gaps and problems in this model, and we adjust our theories to accomadate new knowledge all the time.

With the example of the sun rising, we have more than just the inductive argument supporting it. We have a cosmology about how the earth rotates and makes this happen, and we know terrible things would happen, according to laws of physics, if things suddenly stopped. However, there are still things which happen for which we don't have explanations, and we can only speculate. It's like I said awhile back about how we capture some things in the net we use to drag the ocean, but some things still slip through the holes.

We cannot explain free will by simply declaring that it is part of man's nature. We cannot prove that casualty is simply the law of identity appled to action. The law of identity is a priori, but causality is something that must be proven by experence, by induction. And, experience is not always the same for each individual. Perhaps it is Mel Gibson's experience that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world, but I think his leap to that conclusion is a little too long.

If you disagree with Hume, you should refute him with reason, not just by calling him names, and not just by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you of turning his or her back on reality. Show us, don't just tell us, that Hume is wrong.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 51

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 4:28am

Nick,

===================
If you disagree with Hume, you should refute him with reason, not just by calling him names ...

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

Done.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Thompson/The_Philosophic_Validation_of_Inductive_Inference.shtml

Ed

Post 52

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:42am

Ed,

I notice Wallace I. Matson is referenced quite a bit in that article. He wrote the textbook from which I studied the History of Philosophy many years ago, and I still have it and the section in it where he talks about Hume. Yes, he talks just as I do about how scientific knowledge of the present century allows us to be certain about many things, like the rotation of the earth, the continuance of physical laws such that we can make predictions certain enough to build computers, travel in space, and save lives in the medical field. I conceded all that. However, remember that I also said there is much we still don't know. We don't have all the answers and explanations. There are gaps in the mechanstic model we use to assume cause and effect. It is, after all, a theortical model, not a certainty beyond all question. We are stll finding things out about it, and we are using induction, observation and generalization. Sometimes, we find new information which causes us to adjust our prior assumptions. We correct our mistakes through new generalzations based on new observations, if we don't close ourselves off to the possibility of new information by believing too strongly, by accepting things on faith alone and not questioning again. I've discussed all this is in my essay on perception, logic, and language and in my essay on Me v. God, immortality, and Christian morality.

Anyway, Matson does acknowledge, in his History of Philosophy text, that there is a hard and soft interpretation of Hume. The hard interpretation is ultimately paradoxical, and I agree that it is, and the soft is not powerful enough to challenge some metaphysical and theological views. Still there is much which is interesting about Hume. He is worth further study.

I can go further into where Matson agrees with Hume and where he disagrees, and where even Hume seems to disagree with himself, but I'd like to see what the response is to what I've written so far. Perhaps we should start a new thread. This one is so far off the subject of the initial post that it dishonors Mahroo, and I don't want to do that.

I will point out, however, with regard to another thread, the one about Peikoff and Agnosticism, that Peikoff is comitting a hasty generalization, an inductive fallacy, by classifying all agnostics as cowards. It is just as bad as Gibson's generalization about Jews.

bis bald,

Nick

.

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/02, 10:50am)

Post 53

Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:43pm

Nick, I'll respond later ...

Ed
[I'm NOT blowing-off this discussion -- even if I would readily accuse YOU of doing that; with this Red-Herring/Straw-Man Matson stuff.]
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/03, 10:45pm)

Post 54

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:43pm

Nick,

========================
remember that I also said there is much we still don't know
========================

Agreed.

========================
Sometimes, we find new information which causes us to adjust our prior assumptions. We correct our mistakes through new generalzations based on new observations, if we don't close ourselves off to the possibility of new information by believing too strongly, by accepting things on faith alone and not questioning again.
========================

Is it possible that new, empirical data will ever prove that a live elephant would be, could be, or IS smaller than a live flea?

Is it possible that new, empirical data will ever prove that Mexico is north of Canada?

Fess up, Nick. Inquiring minds want to know.

========================
It's like I said awhile back about how we capture some things in the net we use to drag the ocean, but some things still slip through the holes.
========================

Good analogy, Nick. Illustrative. Let me ask you, however, is it possible that empirical data will ever prove that a live whale that is just large enough to be captured by the net -- slips "through the holes" (while the net still remains a net -- ie. intact)?

Because, if it's not possible for solid objects to pass directly through other solid objects -- then certainty is possible (about whether or not certain solid objects, were in certain areas, at certain times).

========================
We cannot explain free will by simply declaring that it is part of man's nature.
========================

What is self-evident to introspection, does not REQUIRE explanation. This is what Rand meant about the axioms -- by the way. One is not ever -- rationally -- called upon to "explain" the existence of existence, for example. It just is. Bow your head, acknowledge it -- and MOVE ON to something worth your mental time and energy. That's the rational thing to do -- as a human, on planet Earth.

========================
We cannot prove that casualty is simply the law of identity appled to action. The law of identity is a priori, but causality is something that must be proven by experence, by induction.
========================

Aha, via reductio ad absurdum (assuming the contradictory, and checking for outright absurdity), we CAN prove this. The question becomes; "Can a thing act in contradiction to it's nature?" Here are a few examples of this proof ...

Can water (H2O) boil -- at 1 atm -- at 101 degrees Celsius (without being contaminated by salts)? No. If "some" water boils at 101 degrees Celsius, then something is up (because water cannot ever act in contradiction to it's nature).

Can an elephant, a being which requires trillions of cells to even survive as the kind of creature it is, ever be smaller than a flea, a being which, due to the absence of lungs, relies on wimpy gas diffusion for respiration to its entire body?

========================
Matson does acknowledge, in his History of Philosophy text, that there is a hard and soft interpretation of Hume. The hard interpretation is ultimately paradoxical, and I agree that it is, and the soft is not powerful enough to challenge some metaphysical and theological views. Still there is much which is interesting about Hume. He is worth further study.
========================

Really? Matson doesn't seem to think so. Here he is -- in The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand -- addressing the issue (caps for italics) ...

========================
... outside-inners on the other hand, the likes of Aristotle and Spinoza, who, beginning with a world out there as given at least in its most general features, conceive their task to be one of systematic explanation, in which consciousness, the culmination of natural phenomena, is the last topic to come up for consideration.

Inside-outism has often seem inescapable; for, after all, where CAN we begin knowledge but with our thoughts? But Hume showed that if we start inside and do not cheat, we can never get outside ...

Rand will have none of this. ...

Existence is "implicit in every state of awareness" (p. 52); and although "one cannot analyze or 'prove' existence as such, it cannot be denied without covertly being confirmed (pp. 54-55). ...

... concepts are not subjective or arbitrary but are dictated by the nature of the things. Rand explains lucidly how this can be so without having to postulate either Platonic ideas or Aristotelian forms.
========================

Recap:
Hume, an inside-out philosopher -- ie. a position which is absurd -- is NOT worth "further study" (beyond a luminous refutation).

Hume was a dunce.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/07, 10:43pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/07, 10:44pm)

Post 55

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

Ed,

I can�t know what new, as yet unknown, empirical data will show, only that it can cause us to adjust some of our views about things we now think are certain.

With regard to free-will, you say that what is self-evident to introspection does not require explanation. However, introspection is never as self-evident as is extrospection because of the problem of turning the eyes back in on themselves to observe the observer. One can never get to the end to determine an object with a fixed nature. The observer is a subject which participates in the creation of his or her nature, which is constantly in a process of becoming. That is why he or she is free. If something simply is what it is, then it cannot be free to become. It would be like an object, not a subject.

This makes more sense to me than does the claim that free-will is just self-evident and needs no more explanation. I do think some things are self-evident, but Rand uses this device too often. She leans on it. Good philosophers don�t do that.

With regard to cause and effect being a corollary of the law of identity, the law of identity is a priori. It is true by definition. Causality, however, has to be proven by experience. It doesn�t help to say that everything has a specific nature. This is also verified by experience, not by definition. And, as I said above, the nature of man has to be a little different than the nature of everything else if man has free-will. This isn�t accounted for in the mechanistic model where everything has a cause.

Your interpretation of what Matson said is your interpretation, not his. �Inside-outside� and �outside-inside� philosophers both have dualisms which can be seen as absurd by monists. Hume can be criticized, but so can Rand. To conclude, without further study, that Hume is not worth further study, is a statement of willful ignorance. It is what bigots say about anything which might challenge their views. It is not what Matson says.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 56

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:44am

Nick,

The observer is a subject which participates in the creation of his or her nature, which is constantly in a process of becoming. That is why he or she is free. If something simply is what it is, then it cannot be free to become. It would be like an object, not a subject.

Humans become things, but humans can't become anything. Instead, we are limited by the human capacity for change. Humans can't run a mile in 30 seconds, because, besides not having biological energy systems to support that, cooling mechanisms would be overwhelmed. Now, for you to sit there and point at me and say: "Look at Ed, so SURE of this inductive generalization about humans; he hasn't seen EVERY human, so HOW can he claim to "know" (rather than "believe") this generalization?" -- I gotta' wonder what the hell you ARE defending.

Answer the question, Nick. Is it a possibility that a living elephant will ever be smaller than a living flea?

Quit evading (and name-calling) and answer the damn question.

Ed

Post 57

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:04pm

Humans become things, but humans can't become anything. Instead, we are limited by the human capacity for change. Humans can't run a mile in 30 seconds, because, besides not having biological energy systems to support that, cooling mechanisms would be overwhelmed. Now, for you to sit there and point at me and say: "Look at Ed, so SURE of this inductive generalization about humans; he hasn't seen EVERY human, so HOW can he claim to "know" (rather than "believe") this generalization?" -- I gotta' wonder what the hell you ARE defending.

Yes, there are some physical limitations on humans. Subjects do have their object side. I do think there is a humaness, a universal human nature which doesn't change from place to place or time to time. I've said this repeatedly in my writings. I've also said that within those generalizable parameters, man is free to participate in creating his or her nature. I explained, in more than one post in this forum, how human language provides a creative ability in humans which is not present in other animals, and that explains the ablity of humans to invent and have an industrial revolution. So, yes, in some respects, man's nature is fixed, but within parameters, it is also in flux, being worked on by man.

And, I didn't point at you and say, "Look at Ed, blah, blah, blah." I didn't say we can't be more certain about some things than others. I just said we can't be certain of everything, and what we don't know can cause us to adjust some things of which we think we are certain, if we someday learn them .

I don't see why you accuse me of evading and name-calling. I don't think I'm doing that. I answered your question about the elephant and the flea. I said we can be certain enough for practical purposes that some things are always going to be true, like the elephant being larger than the flea. If someone chops my head off, I'm certain enough for government work that I am going to die. That doesn't mean, though, that if some Japanese people are good at math, they all are. Because we can be more certain of some things than others, it doesn't mean we can be certain of everything that is supported with inductive reasoning, experience.

I think you are not reading me carefully, as has been your habit, and you are trying to force me into your strawman impression so it will be easier to knock me over. You are not really getting a clean shot at me, though, and I'm not going to stand where you want me to. In Judo, they teach me to take small steps, drag my feet along the mat, and never cross my legs when moving in the direction my opponent is pulling or pushng me. That way, I will keep my balance and not be vulnerable to being thrown. I will not move into the perfect position for you to throw me. You should know that about me, through inductive reasoning if nothing else.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 58

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:19pm

Nick, my point, put simply, is this ...

It is possible to make it impossible -- to be wrong about certain things.

For example, it's not possible that I'm wrong about a live whale slipping through the holes in your hypothetical fishing net -- and, presumably, then coalescing back together after doing the thing (becoming a million, separated pieces) that is in contradiction to it's nature.

It is through the impossibility of contradictions (ie. via reductio ad absurdums) that humans are able -- when they think straight -- to become justifiably certain about empirical data. Here are some things that won't ever be proven false in the future, on planet earth ...

========================
A) All living elephants will be bigger than all living fleas (because it's a physical impossibility to reduce an elephant's size down to that approaching a flea -- due to the number of cells needed for elephant organs)

B) 2 + 2 will be equal to 4

c) Force will equal mass multiplied by acceleration

D) Objects will retain momentum -- unless acted on by a force

E) Every living thing will have some energy in it's body

F) Every living thing will have some water in it's body.

G) Crime still won't pay.

H) Communism & Fascism (if still practiced) will keep people poor -- or dead (either from famine or necessary wars).

I) Self-esteem will still be important for living a full, happy, human life.

J) Like-minded individuals will still find friendship valuable.

K) Not initiating force on innocent others -- will still be the right thing to do.

L) Fire will still be hotter than ice.
========================

It is not possible for these things to "become" contradicted. And the reason for this impossibility -- is because Existence IS Identity.

Do you see where I'm coming from, Nick?

Ed

Post 59

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:46pm